The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
Membership
The SPEAKER (12:01): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that from 5 December 2016 Senator Duniam is to be discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and Senator Bernardi is to be appointed a member of the committee.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016
The SPEAKER (12:01): I have a short statement to make before I call the Clerk. Yesterday, when the Treasurer introduced the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016, the member for Grayndler sought a ruling from the chair whether the legislation could proceed when it sought to bind future parliaments by legislating there would not be a further increase in the charge for five years after 1 July 2017.
It is not clear what point was being raised by the member for Grayndler. The houses frequently legislate measures that will apply many years into the future, so to that extent there is nothing for me to rule on but I do make the point it is open to any future parliament to amend such legislation.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:02): On indulgence—I thank you for that ruling. It correctly points out that the legislation that is before the parliament and seeks to bind future parliaments has no effect, which is the point that I was seeking to make yesterday and will make when the bill is attempted to be brought on for debate later today.
The SPEAKER (12:03): I thank the member for Grayndler. He would have heard me say there was nothing for me to rule on, but I was able to point out it is open to any future parliament to amend such legislation. There are many examples where that has occurred, but I will not go through them for risk of picking one that might make members think I am not being impartial.
BILLS
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The SPEAKER (12:03): I understand it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:03): That understanding of the will of the House may be the will of the House put forward by the Leader of the House, but it is not a unanimously held view of the House, and the view of the opposition is that these bills are separate and should be dealt with separately.
The SPEAKER (12:04): There is an objection so the bills will need to be dealt with separately.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (12:04): Here we are again, and the rolling chaos goes on. The government is trying to fix their mess and they cannot even get the scheduling of the bills right. They tell the Speaker it is will of the House, and something happens that is not the will of the House. Normally, such things are done through consultation. There is not even a phone call to say that the bills should be dealt with separately or together because, of course, they should be dealt with separately.
I can understand the wish of the Leader of the House and ministers opposite to try and squirm through this issue as quickly as possible, to have as little debate on this as possible and not to have the focus of the House on their incompetence. I can understand their sensitivities, but it is not going to be that way. It is not going to be that way because regional Australia deserves better. Regional Australia deserves a proper discussion about these issues. Tourism deserves a proper discussion about these issues. It will not be that way, because what we are seeing here today is a humiliating backdown by an incompetent Treasurer on the run.
The working holiday-maker tax measure was first introduced in 2015. I do not hold the current Treasurer responsible for that; he was not the Treasurer. Indeed, it is open to him to throw Mr Hockey under the bus, as is apparently the current trend in the government. Their current favourite occupation is to say: 'Joe's in Washington. He can't defend himself. We we'll just blame him.' He could be doing that on the backpacker tax, except he has made it his own.
He has adopted it, he has run with it, he has embraced it, he has sold it right across Australia—he has not actually sold it right across Australia because he does not get out to regional Australia all that much. He has not been out to face the farmers and the growers and the tourism operators about this tax, but he has certainly adopted it as his own policy. He adopted it at 32½ per cent—apparently, it was a great rate. Then he adopted it at 19—that was a great rate. And now it is 15, he announced in a press conference on Monday—which was immature and petulant even for him, and that is a big call, I accept. But even for him, it was an immature and petulant press conference, at which he said, very unwillingly, that he would reduce the tax rate to 15 per cent. Of course he said, that he was the grown-up, mature person in the room; he could do this. Then he said, in the next breath, the Labor Party can go and jump in the lake, which is something that grown-up and mature people say all the time, telling their parliamentary colleagues to go jump in the lake. That was the official position of the Treasurer. Obviously, he is not interested in a proper and sensible discussion about these issues. Feeling hurt, feeling sensitive, displaying his well-known glass jaw, he just petulantly said: 'Well, 15 per cent, take it or leave it. I'm not entering into any discussions.' Well, it is not that simple either.
What the Treasurer did not do is outline how 15 per cent is a competitive rate, how 15 per cent compares with New Zealand's tax rate, whether 15 per cent has been modelled in terms of the impact on backpacker numbers to Australia. He did none of that because he could not because the work had not been done. We know this is the epitome of policy on the run. This is the prime example of policy on the run. How do we know that? We know that from the government because the Minister for Finance, the nation's second most senior economic minister, was on Insiders 24 hours beforehand saying: 'We will not move from 19 per cent; 19 per cent is set in stone. We can compromise no further.' That was the nation's second most senior economic minister 24 hours before, and then the Treasurer comes out and says, 'Well, no, actually we can compromise and we'll go to 15 per cent.' It is even worse than that. We know from Senator Hinch, who was at the little garden party down at the Lodge the night before, that the Treasurer himself told Senator Hinch that there would be no movement from the 19, 'No movement.' That was in the afternoon. I did not go; I am not sure what time it was, but I know it was in the afternoon–that little garden party down at the Lodge. So that was even less than 24 hours beforehand.
We have the Treasurer saying, 'We won't move from 19,' and we have the finance minister saying, 'We won't move from 19.' I wonder who decided to move from 19, Mr Speaker? Maybe it was the Prime Minister. Maybe it was the member for Dawson. Maybe it was Cory Bernardi. Who knows? It could have been anybody who decided to move from 19, but we know it was the Treasurer who was pushed out the door, by himself, no joint press conference with the Deputy Prime Minister, to say: 'We will now move to 15 per cent'—as if that would be all okay, there was nothing more to see here and now the world can move on.
This has been perhaps the best example out of many, many possible examples of this government's incompetence, their arrogance most particularly, and their lack of consultation. There was no consultation about 32½ per cent and there was no consultation about 19 per cent with the sector. Of course, what the government's position was when they announced 19 per cent was that the parliament should pass it immediately and to say: 'How dare you delay it for a Senate inquiry. How dare you send it off for further examination. You should pass this immediately.' That is what the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister said to this side of the House and to the crossbench, that we should have no further discussion. We said: 'No, actually this might need a bit more discussion. This might need to go to a Senate inquiry,' and thank goodness we did. The Senate inquiry brought forward the evidence from the horticulture sector, in particular, but also tourism and agriculture that 19 per cent did not meet the concerns of the sector, that 19 per cent was regarded as a rate which would see fewer backpackers come to Australia and that 19 per cent was not sustainable. Again, no wonder the government did not want a Senate inquiry, no wonder the government did not want that further examination of their policy.
The fact of the matter is there is one reason the tax is not 19 per cent, one reason alone, and that reason is the Australian Labor Party, because the National Party and the Liberal Party wanted to vote for 19 per cent last week. All of them sitting over there on the other side, who will vote for 15 per cent today, voted for 19 per cent last week. That is what they voted for.
Mr Fitzgibbon: They didn't know they would get another chance.
Mr BOWEN: They had the chance. We gave them the chance. We brought it on in the House and we said, 'You're prepared to stand up for shotguns, you're prepared to cross the floor so it is easier to import shotguns into Australia, why don't you cross the floor so it is easier for farmers and horticulturalists to get the workers they need to do their job?' But, no, they do not have the courage to do that. They did not have the courage to cross the floor. They voted for 19 per cent.
So when we say that it would have been 19 per cent if not for the actions of the Labor Party, those opposite have no defence because the Hansard does not lie, as the Deputy Prime Minister well knows—the Hansard does not lie. The Hansard will show all those members opposite saying they think the appropriate tax rate is 19 per cent. The Labor Party and the crossbench in this House and the crossbench in the Senate have delivered the result which means we have a tax rate lower than 19 per cent. Well, that is a start; that is a step. But it would have been better if the tax rate had been 10½ per cent. Why? Because it would make Australia competitive with New Zealand.
We suspect there will be continuing problems with a tax rate of 15 per cent and honourable members opposite will have to go and explain to their farmers and their tourism operators why they are insisting on a situation which makes it harder to attract backpackers to work in Australia. As we have said before, what honourable members opposite seem to fail to realise is it is not just about workers, important as that is. As the member for Bendigo well knows, when backpackers work in an area, they spend the money in the area; they are not great savers. Backpackers do not have a great reputation as frugal operators, as people who build their wealth; they spend their money. If they are working in Bendigo, they spend it in Bendigo. If they are working in Cairns, they spend it in Cairns. That was the feedback that was given to us as we engaged in our consultations around Australia—something that those opposite seem to fail to understand.
As I said before, the Liberal Party are meant to understand business, the National Party are meant to understand regional Australia and they have both shown through this farce that they understand neither. The Liberal Party do not understand business, certainly not tourism, hospitality, agriculture and horticulture; and the National Party are just out to lunch. On this issue, the National Party have been about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike! They have sat and they have watched this Treasurer get it wrong time and time again. The member for Hunter, in terms of his responsibilities, has been consulting with the sector. He has been much more in touch with the concerns of horticulture and agriculture than has been the National Party and the Liberal Party on these issues.
We know that the National Party and the Liberal Party have engaged in a lack of consultation. We know that there was no consultation with the sector, certainly not on 32½ and not on 19 because the Deputy Prime Minister went out and said that he was outraged when we announced we were not voting for 19. He said, 'But it's part of a negotiated settlement.' The only trouble was nobody else was there, only the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister negotiated this settlement. It is not one that the sector was consulted on; it was not one that the opposition was consulted on. We have shown that we are prepared to work with the government where sensible outcomes can be reached. We know that what we have has been a rolling farce.
I saw the president of the National Farmers Federation this morning—who, as the member for Hunter has made clear, has the support and respect of this side of the House—and she said, 'We were absolutely blindsided by an item in the budget that came in that we weren't consulted about that said that they were going to put the backpacker tax up to 32½ per cent from nought per cent.' And that is the point; it was from nothing. I have seen the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance trying to argue that it was actually a tax reduction from 32½ per cent down to 19 per cent, when in fact it was nought.
But that is not the limit on this government's dishonesty when it comes to the backpacker tax. The dishonesty has continued and it has been perpetrated by the Treasurer, who has argued—as has the Prime Minister—that the Labor Party's position is that backpackers should pay zero tax. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer keep saying that somehow or other the Labor Party's position is that backpackers should pay no tax. I understand that there can be argument about interpretation of what people say in this House. As you well know, Mr Speaker, I might put a certain connotation on what I say and honourable members opposite might try to put a different connotation on it—and that is all fair game. We all look at our respective comments and we all interpret them as we see fit, but what you cannot do is make it up.
When the government says that the Labor Party's position is a zero tax, it ignores the inconvenient little fact that our position is actually 10½ per cent. I know that 10½ per cent has a zero in it—I accept that there is a zero in the 10—but it does not mean zero. It is a figure greater than zero. It is less than 15 and less than 19 but it is greater than zero. We actually support a tax on backpackers, because the vast majority of backpackers do not pass the tax-free threshold and therefore pay no tax under current arrangements when they are working in Australia, and they should make a contribution. We accept that, but what we do not accept is that that contribution should be so high as to make it uncompetitive and so high as to make it harder for horticulturalists to get the workers that they need, which therefore has strong flow-through effects to regional areas.
The other great mistruth that the other side has sought to tell—and I am sure honourable members opposite will tell this mistruth in this debate until we all get gagged in this government's incompetence—is that somehow or other the Labor Party's position sees backpackers paying less tax than Australian workers, and that is just not true. Under these arrangements and under the Labor Party's amendments, backpackers pay tax on the first dollar earned and every dollar subsequent—the first dollar earned. That does not apply to Australian workers. Australian workers do not pay tax until they pass the tax-free threshold. So any comparisons there must take that into account. It is utterly inappropriate for the government to perpetrate this untruth that there is a level at which an Australian worker would pay more tax than a backpacker. That is just an untruth. The government should stop telling those untruths. They should accept their utter incompetence on this matter and they should accept the will of the Senate, which has been 10½ per cent.
We understand that they have done a deal with other crossbenchers to get it through at 15 per cent. Well, good luck to them. The Labor Party will stick to 10½ per cent, and the Labor Party will vote for 10½ per cent. And, at the appropriate time, I will move amendments to reflect that, just as I will be moving a second reading amendment—which I hope that the government can support, based on the precedent of government supporting second reading amendments condemning them, when they know, and they have to face the reality, that they have got it so wrong.
The Labor Party will continue our consistent approach on this. Those opposite have gone from 32½ per cent to 19 per cent to 15 per cent. We will continue to argue that the tax should be 10½ per cent. Presumably they will win. Presumably, they have their done their homework finally and they have the numbers—although, they did not, as we saw just a few minutes ago, when trying to get a cognate debate through with no consultation, against the precedent of normal consultation with the opposition. When they presumably win, what they will find is that they will continue to have to answer to regional Australia as to why it is harder for horticulture, agriculture and tourism to get the backpackers they need.
Mr Speaker, on slight indulgence, and I will not belabour the point because it is a separate bill, we have also seen the rolling farce of the passenger movement charge, which will come before the House separately. That has been equal in incompetence—without foreshadowing what the member for Grayndler says in response to the passenger movement charge. We saw the Minister for Trade at the despatch box just a few weeks ago saying that increases in the passenger movement charge strangle the goose that lays the golden egg for tourism and are inappropriate. Obviously, he was not in the loop. The Treasurer and the finance minister had not told him that they were about to increase the passenger movement charge—a departure tax which is already the highest in the world at $55 and moving to $60. That compares to $23 in the United States, $17 in China, $19 in Mexico and between $21 and $43 in the United Kingdom for short-haul travel. It is higher in the United Kingdom for long-haul travel—I do acknowledge that—but that does not mean that Australia's passenger movement charge at $60 is competitive.
The SPEAKER: I remind the member for McMahon that it is not a cognate debate.
Mr BOWEN: I do understand that; I am just making some general points, Mr Speaker, and I do appreciate your indulgence to do that, because they are matters which have underlined this government's incompetence. We look forward to fully debating the passenger movement charge later in the day, or whenever it comes on for debate, as it should separately.
When it comes to economic incompetence, this takes the cake for this Treasurer. He could have fixed this months ago, and he should have fixed it months ago—not just for his sake and the parliament's sake but also for the sake of regional Australia. As the member for Hunter has pointed out, this uncertainty in and of itself has created major difficulties in regional Australia. When backpackers are looking at countries to go to to work and to holiday they look at the headlines and they see this headline about a backpacker tax in Australia. I imagine that backpackers sitting in the United Kingdom, Scandinavia or the United States are not reading the Hansard closely and they do not know that this debate is going on and there is a chance that the rate will be lower; they just know that the government wants to put a 32½ per cent tax and then a 19 per cent tax on their earnings. That makes Australia uncompetitive. When they are thinking about where to go, they will say, 'We can go to New Zealand and we can pay 10½ per cent there.' The government will say, 'But wage rates are lower in New Zealand.' The last time I checked, backpackers do not get out the enterprise agreements and the industrial instruments and compare them to the tax rates and make a detailed econometric calculation about the wage rates and the tax rates and how they interact; they look at the headline rates. As the government are fond of saying, if you want less of something then tax it more. Obviously the government want fewer backpackers coming to Australia. They want fewer backpackers working in fruit picking. They want fewer backpackers working in tourism. They want fewer backpackers spending that money in regional Australia. By their own equation, as they say so often, 'If you want less activity of something, then tax it more.' They want to tax backpackers more. The Treasurer likes to go on about Labor's tax policies. The Labor Party is proposing a lower tax rate than the government. He can engage in his flights of fancy about how that is unfair, but imposing an uncompetitive tax rate is unfair on Australia's horticulturalists, it is unfair on Australia's farmers and it is unfair on Australia's tourism operators—as they have pointed out so strongly and as Fiona Simson pointed out so strongly this morning.
It is unusual for the National Farmers Federation, I must say, to be so publicly critical of a Liberal-National government. They tend to be more in lock step than that, but the NFF have had a gutful of the government and their arrogant treatment of them. What is interesting to note is that the NFF were obviously told by the government, 'Don't worry. We're not going to buckle. We won't go under 19. You won't make fools of yourselves by saying, "Stick to 19." If you back 19, we'll stick to 19 and we'll get it through.' I think the NFF have seen the error of their ways in listening to anything this Treasurer or this Deputy Prime Minister tells them. This Deputy Prime Minister cannot be trusted by the NFF, just as he is not well regarded in regional Australia.
This will be another humiliation for this Treasurer and another humiliation for this Deputy Prime Minister, who have shown so comprehensively that they do not understand business and do not understand the operation of regional Australia. Accordingly, a second reading amendment has been circulated in my name. I hope the government supports that second reading amendment. I will be moving detailed amendments at the consideration in detail stage. I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading as:
(1) after the introduction of the backpacker tax in 2015 there has been widespread damage and financial cost to the agriculture, hospitality and tourism sectors across regional Australia including Tasmania and Queensland;
(2) the package has been criticised by no less than 15 Coalition Members of Parliament;
(3) no consultation occurred with the agriculture sector before the tax was first introduced;
(4) the tax rate changed from 19 per cent to 15 per cent after the Treasurer was:
(a) pressured by the Labor Party's strong position in favour of a 10.5 per cent tax rate;
(b) pressured by the revolt from the horticulture and tourism sectors; and
(c) rolled on economic policy by the crossbench;
(5) the tax rate change will cost $120 million despite the Minister for Finance saying that the Government had compromised "as far as we can sensibly compromise, given the Budget bottom line cannot afford a further tax cut beyond what it is that we have put on the table"; and
(6) the Government has not demonstrated how the 15 per cent figure will leave Australia more competitive compared to a rate of 10.5 per cent".
The SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Fitzgibbon: It is indeed, and I reserve my right to speak.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (12:24): I could be unkind and say that is 20 minutes of my life I will never get back again. How far has the once proud Labor Party sunk? This is not the Labor Party of Hawke and Keating, who understood the national interest. This is the Labor Party of Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, who wants to find the quickest route to the Lodge and be buggered what he will do in the interim to the national interest. That is what this debate is about. The debate here is about the national interest. In particular, it is about hardworking Australian farmers—in my case in the electorate of Barker, whether they be in the Riverland, in the south-east, in the Mallee or in the Barossa. Hardworking Australian farmers have invested their hard-earned money and need the assistance of backpackers to do the heavy lifting at harvest time, during periods of peak labour demand.
I should say, and I hope it is not forgotten in this debate, that it is interesting that we are having a debate, effectively, about the rate of taxation for foreign workers when we have high levels of unemployment in this country. We need to always remember that we should be steering the ship of government, if you like, towards ensuring Australians find their way into employment. But, as I speak to my constituents, very many of them tell me that, unfortunately, many of these unemployed Australians do not want to do this work. I know lots about horticulture. My father was an onion farmer. I know this work is heavy, hard and dusty. My formative years were spent moving irrigation pipes around our property. The worst decision I ever made was to tell my father I could lift one, because he then put me to work fairly consistently doing more of that. Like I said, we are here to pursue the national interest and, sadly, the Labor Party has forgotten about that.
We heard from the member for McMahon that this measure does not have the support of the National Farmers Federation. That is not right—and the member for Hunter knows it. The NFF supported a 19 per cent rate, just like they now support the 15 per cent rate. We heard about uncertainty. Who is creating the uncertainty in this debate? This matter ought to have been resolved six months or more ago, but, instead of sitting down in a mature and constructive way to work with us, the member for Hunter and, presumably, his leader were working on ways to create division—not unity but division and uncertainty for people in my electorate. It is the kind of uncertainty that causes real economic harm. There has been a deal of misinformation in this campaign run by the Labor Party to try and paint a picture of dysfunction and chaos. The first bit of misinformation that I will correct is this: backpacker numbers have been in steep decline since 2012, long before there was a discussion about effective tax rates. If we are talking about misinformation, let's also talk about the misinformation circulating that somehow it was a coalition decision to arrive at a tax rate of 32½ per cent. Wrong. It was an application made by the Australian Taxation Office.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
Mr PASIN: If the member for Bendigo will listen, she will get the good oil. A decision was taken by the Australian Taxation Office to take three separate matters to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. On each of those occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal indicated that the backpacker here under a 417 visa was in fact a foreign worker and was subject to foreign workers tax at 32½ per cent. So this has not been a debate about the coalition wanting to set the rate at 32½ per cent; rather the coalition indicated that 32½ per cent is inappropriate. Members of the backbench and the executive, guided through work of the backbench agriculture committee, supported a lower rate of taxation—because 19 is less than 32.
Ms Keay: It took you 18 months to get there.
Mr PASIN: We just heard from one of the Tasmanian members that it took us some time. Yes, it did. If you had come to the table six months ago, we could have resolved this.
We have heard from the shadow Treasurer that the Labor Party are not talking about no tax; they are talking about 10 per cent and saying that is effectively what you would see in an Australian workplace—rubbish. Is he suggesting—and if he is I encourage him to make it policy—that the effective tax rate in this country for Australian workers is 10 per cent or 10.5 per cent? There is no way the effective tax rate for Australian workers is 10.5 per cent. Effectively, what they are arguing is for Australian workers to be taxed at a higher rate than foreign workers. I accept that it is a working holiday, but I do not accept that it should be a tax-free holiday—not at all.
The other inconvenient truth, here, for the member for Hunter—I encourage him to try and explain this—is why does, presumably, the Australian Labor Party want a tax rate for backpackers, foreign workers here under 417 visas, a full 4½ per cent lower than the effective tax rate for Pacific workers working on the Pacific Seasonal Worker Program. It is incredibly inconsistent, and why is it inconsistent? It is because they are playing the politics of, 'How do we get Bill into the Lodge as quickly as possible?' It is absolute rubbish and not the Australian Labor Party of a previous day.
The member for Hunter, who has been large on this debate, who has been huge, absolutely significant—it is a pity he cannot get a question up at question time—might have wanted to word up the Assistant Treasurer when the Assistant Treasurer was saying that the Labor Party does not support a zero rate. The member for Hunter yesterday said, 'Well, the Australian Labor Party was happy with zero, happy for foreign workers to come to this country, take jobs that are available to Australians, compete with Australians for those jobs and, effectively, pay a tax rate of zero.' Fair dinkum, mate. Are we serious about getting young Australians and unemployed Australians into work? Clearly not.
It is like I told you, you are not the Australian Labor Party of Hawke and Keating; sadly, you are not, because you are not interested in the national interest. You should take a minute to think about the national interest. We can have our partisan fights at election time—bring it on—but not while we are trying to govern, not while the casualties here are hardworking Australian farmers who you have sacrificed in your pursuit of one member for Maribyrnong and his journey to the Lodge.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12:32): I think the member for Barker ran out of things to say, so solidly has he inserted himself into this debate. I will start with the member for Barker because I was on ABC Riverina just this morning and I heard the same porkies he told just now in the House when the host of the program decided to replay for me what the member for Barker had said yesterday. It is pretty extraordinary the way he and others—the member for Mallee, the member for Hinkler, the member for Durack, the member for Capricornia and others—have tried to twist this debate.
I will begin by dealing with some of those myths. The first is the Pacific Islander program the member for Barker just raised: apples and oranges, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, if you will excuse the pun. That program is a foreign aid program. This whole debate is about the appropriate incentive settings to bring backpackers from places like Europe here, and there is no comparison to be made with the Pacific Islander program. The second I will not dwell on, because the Shadow Treasurer has already covered it. It is this idea that Australian workers were going to be working alongside backpackers and paying more tax. It is absolute rubbish and no shortage of economic commentators have said so. But they have continued to perpetuate that lie right throughout the course of this debate. The third is this idea that it is not their tax—'Nothing to see here. Thirty two point five per cent was never our idea. It was the tax commissioner. It was the tax commissioner backed by no less than the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nothing to see here. We are innocent. We never supported this not in any stage.'
Mainly for the member for Barker's benefit, I am going to read exactly what Joe Hockey, the then Treasurer, said on budget night 2015. Having already talked elsewhere about levelling the playing field, he said the government will:
… change the tax residency rules from 1 July 2016 to treat most people who are temporarily in Australia for a working holiday as non‑residents for tax purposes, regardless of how long they are here.
This is the Treasurer's speech on budget night. He goes on to say this means they will be taxed at '32.5 per cent from their first dollar of income'. This is not your tax? This is your Treasurer, on budget night, declaring that he is about to secure $540 million in revenue.
He said it with such glee; I remember it so vividly. Yet members on the other side want to claim that this was never their idea—'It is all the tax commissioner's fault.' And the member for Barker said that the Labor Party was happy with it at zero. Yes, we were. Of six years in government we never proposed a backpacker tax—never. In fact, in the 12 years prior to that we never proposed a backpacker tax. It took geniuses on that side of the House, when backpackers were already falling away, to decide to whack a tax on them, to whack a tax on them when they were already falling away. There is one thing that all of us in this place agree on: backpackers are needed in the agricultural sector and, indeed, in the tourism sector. They are, in particular, needed in the horticultural sector.
While I am talking about some of the misleads, I want to go to an awkward conversation, and that is the contribution of the National Farmers' Federation throughout the course of this debate. Obviously, it is important for me to have a working relationship with the National Farmers' Federation, and I do. I said in this place, last week, 'Congratulations to Fiona Simson' the new chair. She will do an outstanding job, I believe, in that position. She has been a great leader of NSW Farmers and other entities, and she will be, again, a great leader of the National Farmers' Federation.
But on budget night 2015 I rang the NFF, as you would expect the shadow minister to do. When I saw a 32.5 per cent backpacker tax and $540 million in revenue coming the government's way, alarm bells rang in my mind. As you would expect, I called the NFF. I asked them, 'Are you concerned about this? This looks really nasty for the agricultural sector.' 'No', was the response, 'no problem there.' So, initially, the opposition did not criticise the backpacker tax. We thought, 'The NFF is supporting this initiative.' We assumed they had been consulted and that they had in fact agreed with the proposition, only to learn, of course, that they had not been consulted. Indeed, no-one in the sector whatsoever had been consulted, which is just a disgrace. Had there been any modelling?
Ms Price interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: The member for Barker still seems to not understand—and nor does the member for Durack, who has been pretty happy to intervene. I look forward to her contribution, remembering that, last week, she sat in this place and voted for 19 per cent. When the member for Durack, the member for Capricornia, the member for Hinkler, the member for Mallee and the rest of them voted for 19 per cent last week, they could not possibly have known they would have another opportunity to vote in this place on this tax.
Only last Thursday they were all prepared to impose a 19 per cent backpacker tax on their constituents, on their farming communities. Of course, as late as Sunday evening, the finance minister was telling us that 19 per cent was it and that no more negotiations would be entered into, only to be embarrassed less than 12 hours later when his Treasurer rolled out to say something different. But what those opposite do not understand is that backpackers who do not come here do not pay income tax. We know that they are falling off dramatically, and that is why horticulturalists are screaming for this government to help them. Nor do backpackers pay GST, if they are not here. Nor do they pay excise on things like alcohol. I think I can respectfully say they tend to consume a bit of it—and maybe a few cigarettes as well.
I will let those on the other side in on another secret. I have spoken with many of them over the years. I come from an area that has backpackers. Their parents tend to send them money as well. Most of them do not live only on their earnings. Certainly, they spend all their earnings while they are here, but most of them have a little bit of money sent from mum and dad as well. That is extra cash into the Australian economy. It is obvious that no-one on that side has even contemplated these matters.
I went to that point because I was about to say that there was no modelling on this measure before it was announced in the 2015 budget. There was no modelling on the impact on backpacker numbers and there was no modelling on the second-round effects on the broader economy. What sort of a genius government does that when backpackers are already falling off? It just defies any logic.
I heard the member for Barker say that his farmers are happy now. I doubt it, and I think he is going to get a bit of a surprise when he gets home—or, will it be a surprise? I think it will not be a surprise because he knows they are not happy. I wish the member for Mallee were here. I hope he is on the list. The member for Bendigo might be able to help me out there. Is he on the list? Surely the member for Mallee—
Ms Chesters: Not on the list!
Mr FITZGIBBON: The member for Mallee is not on the list? The member for Mallee is not on the list. If the member for Mallee does not come down here and account for himself to his farmer constituents, I suspect he will not be here next time around. Let me quote what one of his farmers has said about a 15 per cent tax: 'Yes, they have conned a few to agree to 15 per cent. We talked to Andrew Broad. He is going to support 15 per cent. It is better than 19, but Labor is on the money at 10.5 per cent.'
Ms Price: Why not eight? Why 10½?
Mr FITZGIBBON: That is what growers are telling me. I am not calling them; they are emailing me; they are coming through my door; they are on the phone saying , 'We will not be able to compete at 19.' But I want to come back to the NFF. We rang the NFF on budget night—not a problem. Then, of course, just like the government when things got hot, they decided they had a problem with this tax and put forward, very early, this idea of striking it at 19 per cent. That is an arbitrary figure. Some might argue it is the first tax rate, but it is arbitrary in any case. And didn't they fight ferociously for 19 per cent! Just like members in this place, they criticised me and the Labor Party uphill and down dale because we would not support 19 per cent. If we had taken their advice, we would have 19 per cent today. That was their advice.
We should remember that the crossbenchers in the Senate have no power while ever the opposition is voting with the government. But we were never going to vote with the government on this matter. It is the Labor Party that has dragged this government screaming to 15 per cent. But they have not done enough. They need to get real and come to 10½ per cent, as is the nature of our amendment. Why 10½? Because it is the headline rate which matches New Zealand. When backpackers in Ireland and Europe generally are looking at Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada as destinations, they do not get the calculator out and compute award rates and average tax rates and all of that: they just look at the headline rate. This is a sensible proposition.
I look forward to Minister Ciobo making a contribution to this debate. It was only a matter of weeks ago, maybe a month ago, that the minister for tourism was in the UK on a pop-up beach declaring to the world that the backpacker tax had been fixed because it was now going to be 19 per cent. What contempt for this parliament that he was over there spruiking 19 per cent before the parliament had even deliberated on the bill concerned! Well, doesn't he look silly! We talk about the golden goose that has been cooked. I think Minister Ciobo has been cooked—well and truly.
Let me turn to the minister of agriculture, our Deputy Prime Minister. Have you ever seen one person emit so much spin in your life? The amount of misleading he has been doing on this backpacker tax matter is a disgrace. It was not his tax. It was not his idea. Aussie workers were going to be paying more tax than backpackers. It was the Labor Party's idea! It is just unbelievable that this Deputy Prime Minister, no less, is prepared to stand in this place—and, worse, outside in front of the cameras, where he is not covered by privilege and protected from defamation laws—and lie. There is no other word for it. I am sorry if that is not quite parliamentary, but there is no other word for it. The Deputy Prime Minister just lies to the Australian community.
On his colleagues: a week or so ago, two National Party senators crossed the floor, and three cabinet ministers abstained from a vote. They told us they stood up for the farmers. What did they cross the floor on? The Adler shotgun. I am not denying that the Adler is an important issue. It is true: farmers need firearms; no doubt about that. Whether they need nine shots is an entirely different debate, to have elsewhere. They crossed the floor on the shotgun, but not one member of the National Party, nor indeed any Liberal representing a regional seat, has been prepared to cross the floor on the backpacker tax, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that horticulturalists, in particular, are being hurt by this new tax. How is this explained? How can you cross the floor on a shotgun but not cross the floor to defend your farmers? It defies any logic whatsoever.
I am going to read them into the Hansard. I hope I do not leave anyone out; I do not want to offend them: the members for Barker, Durack, Hinkler, Mallee, Calare, Dawson, Riverina, Parkes, Gilmore, Leichhardt, Flynn, Capricornia, New England—the Deputy Prime Minister doing his own people in—Gippsland, O'Connor, Wide Bay, Page, Maranoa, Lyne, Cowper, Wright, Fairfax, Forrest and Corangamite. All are people with significant horticultural or other farming activities in their electorates but they have gone missing—not like the members for Longman and Braddon, and others who are not here, like the members for Lyons and Richmond. The member for Perth understands farmers better than they do on this. He has been one of the most vocal critics of all, and he is from Perth. He gets it. He understands how important this is to Western Australia. The member for Durack—we will see what she has to say—is completely deserting her people, just like the member for Capricornia. I suspect some of them will not be back. They should think about crossing the floor now in this parliament, because it may well and truly be their only opportunity. And I question how much of a future Barnaby Joyce has got as the leader of that hopeless party.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (12:47): Today I have the privilege of talking about the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 (No. 2). This is a very good and sensible piece of public policy that this government has worked on. It has worked through the issues and has landed on a great result for both Aussie workers and foreign backpackers. This government has consulted with farmers, including the NFF; with its own regional members, like me, who are very in touch with the regional areas; and with all the other key stakeholders around, and we have settled on a sensible rate of 15 per cent. This is something that I, together with my other regional Liberal colleagues, like the members for Barker, Forrest, O'Connor and Canning, have been fighting for. Where we have landed will make Australia an even more attractive destination for backpackers. When you factor in our comparatively higher wages and more opportunity for regional work, we are now one of the most desirable destinations for backpackers in the world. When compared with our direct competitors for working holiday-makers, we really do come out on top if we compare ourselves to New Zealand and Canada.
We need to be sensible about this issue. In my state of Western Australia we have an unemployment rate of some 6.5 per cent, but in my electorate of Durack backpackers make up a large and very important part of our workforce—filling jobs in regional towns that, regrettably, Australians simply do not want to take. This is where the balance must be struck. We need to weigh up the needs of our Australian unemployed with the needs of our small-business owners and employers in the regions and our backpackers and working holiday-makers. It is a difficult balance, and I underline that. It is difficult, but it is one I think we have found in 15 per cent.
But the members opposite have shown absolutely no spine on this matter. Just this morning they were saying that they seek to amend the ABCC legislation to protect Australian workers—yes, to protect Australian workers. But they also pushed for a backpacker tax rate of 10.5 per cent. I do not know what their rate is; I think that is Senator Lambie's rate. This would mean that Australian workers would be paying more tax than the backpackers working right alongside them. So what is it: do those opposite stand for Australian workers or not? Or do they—which is what I suspect—simply make their policy on the fly, bark at whatever government policy we may discuss and not even pretend to be an alternative government? The hypocrisy of those opposite is breathtaking and is matched only by their disdain and their disregard for the bush in Australia. Labor should hang their heads in shame. I am not even sure most of those opposite they would be able to describe what a regional or remote area in Australia looks like, let alone deliver policy that will help it to grow and prosper.
The Turnbull government is capable and confident in its reforms for working holiday-makers, which will balance the needs of Australian workers—whom we care about, and I thought those opposite cared deeply about the Australian workers—with the needs of employers and the needs of backpackers.
This legislation is of immense importance in my election of Durack, with a large seasonal workforce right throughout the five regions of mid- and north Western Australia. I doubt that there are many other electorates in Australia that rely on a diverse backpacker workforce as much as my electorate of Durack does. I am very delighted that this government has struck such a sensible, balanced deal and we can have some closure and security for our working backpackers and for their employers. Backpackers work in a wide range of industries, performing a whole host of functions and jobs which many Australians simply will not do. I am not happy about that, and I am sure everyone who sits in this place is not happy about it, but that is the unfortunate reality.
Working backpackers in my electorate make coffee in Geraldton, they pick bananas in Carnarvon, they pour pints in Karratha, they work on cattle stations in the Kimberley and they also do considerable farm work in the Wheatbelt. Without working backpackers, regional life as we know it would simply grind to a halt. They are often short-term propositions but they almost universally come into town with a positive mindset, a willingness to work and a vitality of spirit that enriches whichever community they happen to land in. Far too many Australians are unemployed, but the fact is that Australians will not take these jobs in regional areas. I believe that until we get welfare reform which does not disadvantage welfare recipients from taking such seasonal and regional work, we will see this sorry story continue.
But we do need to protect those who are working side by side with our working backpackers, the ones who are out there doing whatever job they can get to provide for themselves. I thought that is what those on the opposite side stood for, but I am very alarmed that that is not what they appear to stand for. We need to encourage these people to continue to do whatever work they can get, to pull themselves up through their work and move on to bigger and better things in the community in time. That is why we cannot allow working backpackers to be paying less tax than their Australian counterparts, as suggested by those opposite.
A rate of 10.5 per cent is supported by Labor. It was not their idea—it was Jacqui Lambie's idea and they are supporting Senator Lambie—but it would mean that no Australian would get a job over a backpacker. That is just a ridiculous outcome in regional Australia. Surely we need to be encouraging the complete opposite. We cannot tax our working backpackers less than their Australian counterparts for the same work. That is unfair, it is unreasonable and it is un-Australian.
I am particularly proud that we have also introduced the $10 million global youth campaign to encourage young people to come and live and work in Australia. Spearheaded by Tourism Australia, industry and travel partners are now gearing up to sell the message to the world that Australia is a destination for working backpackers and that they are welcome. This, of course, is a fantastic result for regional Australia and this is a great outcome for the Turnbull government. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:54): In policymaking, just like in life, it is important to think things through very carefully. If you make decisions on the run, if you fail to consider what the consequences of those decisions will be, you end up with bad outcomes. If you get it really wrong, you can absolutely damage our economy, you can destroy jobs and you can have a devastating impact on average Australians. That is what has happened with this backpacker tax.
The member for Durack, who just spoke, who spoke in here in favour of 15 per cent, last Thursday was supporting 19 per cent and two months ago was supporting 32.5 per cent. Their position is quite frankly farcical. It is an indictment of their failure to have proper policymaking processes built into the budget situation, and this comes from a group of people who farcically pretend that they care about regional Australia. For the National Party in particular to have presided over this policy disaster, when it has the Minister for Agriculture as the Deputy Prime Minister in a senior cabinet position, is quite frankly extraordinary.
It is not just us saying this. This is what Fiona Simpson, the new head of the National Farmers Federation, said this morning on Radio National: 'We were absolutely blindsided by an item in the budget that came in that we were not consulted about that said that they were going to put the backpacker tax up to 32½ per cent, from nought per cent. When that happened we saw the dangers of what would happen to our industry. People, backpackers particularly, would have a look at that tax rate, would compare it to how well off they would be in Canada, in New Zealand or other countries, and they wouldn't come, and they haven't come.' That is what the National Farmers Federation said about this debacle, presided over by this incompetent, neglectful government.
The fact is that, prior to this, there was no consultation with the industry. The backpacker tax has been causing chaos and uncertainty across the Australian community for more than 18 months. We know this from members such as the member for Solomon, who has reported mangoes lying on the ground, rotting, because of the unavailability of a workforce. We know that farmers have said that they would not plant crops because they were not sure they would be able to be picked. We know that the tourism sector, which I am proud to represent in this chamber on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, particularly in northern and regional Australia, has been devastated by these changes. It has been unable to get those seasonal workers, who are so important, just like in the agricultural sector—particularly in areas like Broome, in the member for Durack's electorate, which has a very short tourist season. People come in and provide support for those businesses.
Yet they introduced this tax, which went from zero to 32.5 per cent, not only with no consultation with the industry but with no research or modelling into the economic effects of the tax. Indeed, there has been no evidence provided from the government that they weighed any benefits from a so-called increase in revenue from this tax against the negative effect on jobs, on businesses and on taxation from the fact that backpackers were not coming here to pay any rate at all. So, far from an increase in revenue, you have had a reduction in revenue and economic activity, particularly in regional Australia, as a result of this government's position.
They introduced this in May 2015, and the first time it was voted on was last week, in late November 2016—18 months without them having the capacity to bring legislation before the parliament. The 2016 budget came and went; the whole of that parliament came and went; the election came and went—and still we did not have any legislation. It is quite extraordinary that you would have a 2015 budget measure still being debated in November 2016—not because it had been rejected by the Senate, because it had failed to be introduced. But, over that time, month after month, as the agriculture and tourism sectors were warning about the impact that it was having—that backpackers were not coming here and that that was having a devastating impact on small business and on regional communities in places like northern Australia and Tasmania that rely upon these people for the local economy—what we had from this government was an arrogance that refused to listen.
And then, at the last minute, you had the 19 per cent figure that they attempted to get through the parliament last week. The government had again said, just two days ago, that they would not budge. And now of course we know that that is precisely what they have done: to budge; to change their position—now down to 15 per cent, because of an amendment proposed by a very minor party in the other place, the once great National Party, rolling over to the Liberal Party on one circumstance in this place around the cabinet room, but rolling over to One Nation senators in the other place, a fact that they stand condemned on.
But the chaos has continued in this parliament. Not only did you have an idea plucked out of the air and put in the budget—and, one would assume, supported by people like Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss, who was then the Deputy Prime Minister of the country—but then, when they changed to 19 per cent, you had, again plucked out of the air, an increase in the passenger movement charge. That increase in the passenger movement charge was made, again, with no economic modelling and no consultation with the sector. It was just a thought-bubble from an unconnected piece of legislation somehow attached to this because they had the farcical situation of having to deal with this legislation.
Last week, first, they knocked off the increase to the passenger movement charge in the Senate. So they had to put it again. And what they said to the One Nation senators was: 'If you just agree to this, we'll have an amendment and we'll bind the parliament for five years.' And of course we heard from the Speaker, in his ruling earlier on, how farcical that is. You cannot bind the parliament for next year, let alone bind the next parliament. The idea that you can do that is, quite frankly, absurd, and the legislation we will deal with next, arising after this, will have no practical effect at all. But it shows that this is government by chaos. On policy integrity, it is a fail. On proper research, it is a fail. On industry consultation, it is a fail. On parliamentary procedure, it is a fail.
Backpackers are critical to the Australian economy. They come here, they work largely in regional communities, and, what is more, they bring more money than they earn. They contribute to those local economies. It is not rocket science. If they are working in Darwin or Broome or Townsville or Launceston, what they do is: they bring money to those local economies. They earn money, and they spend it in those local economies where they are working. The money circulates around those local economies. They help to create local jobs. That is what they contribute.
But also they do something more than that, because all of the research shows that they come back. It is a bit like the people who have gone through the Colombo Plan and why that has been a fantastic investment in Australia's future. These people become advocates. They circulate the pictures of them working in the tourism sector or the agricultural sector through social media. They become advertisers for our great nation. They encourage other people to come here right now. But they also come back. They come back with their families. They come back and, instead of staying in the hostel, they stay at the Hilton, when they come back, down the track. They become advocates for Australia. It is one of the reasons why the tourism sector is growing so strongly.
Research shows that most backpackers earn about $16,000 while they are here, and they spend many times more than that. But we have had these ridiculous arguments put forward by those opposite—ridiculous arguments about backpackers somehow being better off than Australian workers. Well, let us be clear and let us knock off that furphy. Backpackers, under Labor's proposal, would pay 10.5 per cent from the first dollar earned. Thanks to the Labor government, there is a thing called the tax-free threshold. That is now $18,200. We tripled it when we were in government. If you want to talk about progressive tax reform—and I pay tribute to the member for Lilley for this—the most significant single progressive income tax reform in generations was when we tripled the income tax-free threshold. It took a million Australians out of the tax system completely. And, of course, most backpackers do not earn anything like $18,200. So it is the complete furphy that they have raised. They have gone out there and they have tried to argue, somehow, this case. But then, in the ultimate indictment, if anyone was unsure of whether we were right and whether they were just talking rubbish, compare their speeches of last week when 15 per cent would be 'a disaster' with speeches of this week when they have legislation before the House for 15 per cent. They simply cannot have it both ways.
When it comes to tourism, there are a few points. It employs more than a million Australians. It contributes $107 billion to the economy. Every dollar spent on tourism generates another 92c in other parts of the economy. Tourism has been recognised as one of the five super growth sectors. It represents three per cent of Australia's GDP. In the 12 months to August this year, overseas arrivals show eight million international visitors came into Australia, with a 10.9 per cent increase over the previous years. We have a real opportunity at hand to grow the economy through tourism.
If you have a look at the jobs in one seat. Leichhardt, which is based around Cairns, has 8,535 jobs. We will see which way the member for Leichhardt votes on this legislation. The tourism minister himself, the member for Moncrieff, has 6,672 jobs and businesses in his seat. The member for Durack, who just spoke, has 6,195. The courageous member for Dawson will not be voting for this, surely. He has 5,325 people employed. And across Tasmania there are 10,000 direct jobs and over two and a half thousand businesses rely upon tourism.
The fact is: this government has completely botched this legislation. It has damaged tourism and it has damaged agriculture. (Time expired)
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:10): I rise to support the passage of this bill, the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 (No. 2). For too long this issue has dragged on while our farmers across Australia have faced uncertainty. In recent days the government has negotiated in good faith with myself and my Senate colleague, Nick Xenophon, and I thank them for their support. This issue is particularly relevant to me. My electorate has an incredible amount of horticulture and viticulture. We have cherries, we have apples, we have pears. I have seven wine regions. I have strawberries, I have blueberries, I have raspberries. The sector is a major employer, with major investment in my region. Myself, family and friends of mine—we have all done seasonal fruit picking. It is a big part of our lives.
In recent weeks I have worked with the government to develop a seasonal workers incentives trial, which will begin in July next year. This trial will go for two years. It will allow for up to 6,000 Australian job seekers to do seasonal work without losing Newstart or youth allowance. It will not affect their income payments at all. Currently, people on Newstart can be hit with up to a 50c-in-a-dollar loss once they earn over $104 a fortnight. This is a huge disincentive for Newstart recipients to enter seasonal picking work, as they are taking a huge cut in their payment for what could amount to six weeks of employment.
Given that dealing with Centrelink is also arduous at the best of times, the requirement to reapply, should they earn too much and lose their benefits, is often reason enough for Australians to ignore seasonal farm work. The scheme will provide incentives to employment providers, including jobactive and Transition to Work, which works with young people and disability employment services that specialise in supporting people with a disability into employment. This will place participants in seasonal work. In my negotiations with the government, this was a key point in ensuring that we had employment providers as that connection between unemployed people and farmers. Employment providers will be eligible for incentives for up to six weeks while they support people into seasonal work. I firmly believe that, for the scheme to work, the employment providers need to be there as part of it.
Participants in this trial will also be eligible for a living-away-from-home allowance of up to $300 if they find employment that is more than 120 kilometres away from home. This will create a further incentive for participants to enter the trial. I believe that it will give an opportunity for unemployed people living in more metro areas, who perhaps have never even been on a farm, to look up to the hills in my electorate and to look out onto the plains and try working in this area. I also believe that this will support many locals who are unemployed in the regions to take on this work. This scheme, as I said, will remove the disincentive for unemployed people to seek seasonal work where there are genuine labour shortages—and that is why we have backpackers. I am confident that this trial will be successful in encouraging unemployed Australians onto the farm and in creating a bridge into agriculture work.
It is my hope that many of those people who take up this scheme will get the opportunity to stay on farms and, ultimately, will no longer need their income support payments. I think that is really critical because many farmers that I have talked to—and I have been working with farmers right through the campaign and since being a member—tell me that they are really keen to employ Australians for ongoing work, not just for the harvest. This is the $30 million commitment by government. Again, I thank government for taking a look at this and ensuring that farmers have a deeper and wider pool from which to draw labour.
With the greatest respect to Labor and the Greens, I would like to point out that the delay of the implementation of this backpacker tax is hurting regional Australia. I have spoken to many horticulturalists in my electorate. The pain that has been caused to farmers due to the uncertainty over this issue is immense. How many of these farmers that are going to be affected are in seats held by Labor? I am not sure, but I can tell you that I have scores and scores of farmers who are affected in my electorate. The delay in action has caused more problems than you could imagine. This is not an issue to play politics with. This affects people's livelihoods and it affects jobs in regional communities.
I do support the new tax rate of 15 per cent, just as I did also support the 19 per cent tax rate. What we have to remember is that this is same tax rate that is applied to the Seasonal Worker Program available to Pacific islanders, so I think that it is a good landing point. It is quite absurd that we would have the idea of a 10.5 per cent tax rate. We would be giving a better rate to Scandinavians, to Norwegians and to people from England who are coming over than we would give to our nearest neighbours, the Pacific islanders, and it would be a better tax rate than we would be giving to Australians working full time in horticulture. It makes no sense to me. I believe many backpackers will continue to come to Australia. Tax is higher than in New Zealand; that is granted. However, our wages are higher too.
What I cannot stand, though, is that we have spent hours and hours debating this. In the meantime, I have farmers waiting on the edge of their tractor seats and wondering what is going to happen as the cherries in my electorate are getting ready to be picked. My deepest concern is that we will have tonnes of fruit left on the trees, simply because we will not have a workforce to pick it, this year or next year. In my electorate of Mayo, this will have a significant effect on us.
We have already been through enough. Throughout September and October, we lost millions of dollars worth of produce because of the storms that we had. This issue has dragged on for too long, and my deepest hope is that it will finally be resolved this week. The damage has already been done to this year's fruit-picking season, and that cannot be changed, but I wish more members in this House would deeply consider the impact of delaying and politicking on this issue and the damage it is doing in regional Australia. While nothing can be done this year, it is my hope that the Nick Xenophon Team's seasonal work strategy, which is supported by government, will provide a long-term benefit to Australian farms, Australian jobs, and Australian people. I, again, thank the government for their negotiations. I plead to this parliament, please do not play politics with regional Australia. We do not deserve this. Get this through the parliament and let's give certainty to our farmers.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (13:17): I would like to acknowledge those who have made a contribution to this debate on the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 (No. 2). I acknowledge the member for Mayo, but I want to say to her that she needs to understand that we are in the dilemma we are in at the moment purely and simply because of the government's own work. On the night of the 2015 budget, Treasurer Hockey introduced this tax. If there are currently backpackers picking cherries in your electorate, they are paying zero tax. The fact that you may not get sufficient workers this season is purely down to the uncertainty created by the government in the 2015 budget. There is no other reason.
There has been very lacklustre performance from the bunyip aristocracy in the National Party. They have done next to nothing to look after the interests of workers in their communities, or the businesses in their communities. That is what they are.
Mr Christensen: More bunyip than aristocracy.
Mr SNOWDON: Mate, you're certainly a big bunyip.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): We will not have any more of that, thanks.
Mr SNOWDON: We won't be sizeist!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't push it.
Mr SNOWDON: My electorate, Lingiari, produces around $250 million worth of agricultural and horticultural product a year. We are right in the middle of the mango season now. We have seen reports of mangoes on the ground that will never get to market because the growers cannot get a workforce. During the approximately six-week period that they require labour, they need about 2½ thousand workers—for six weeks. This is in a labour market where we have a very low unemployment rate generally, so there is not an available workforce to do this work. It has to come from somewhere else, and it has traditionally been the backpackers. These businesses have suffered immeasurably as a direct result of the actions of this government.
We heard the member for Hunter retell the story about the National Farmers' Federation and their various positions on this tax proposal, but the simple facts are that those people currently involved in picking mangoes in the Northern Territory have suffered as a direct result of the stupidity and inanity of the government and for no other reason. The uncertainty which has been created is all their own work. Let's just remind ourselves—when Treasurer Hockey said he was going to be levelling the playing field in 2015, he said the government would change the residency rules from 1 July 2016, and he went on to say:
This means they will be taxed at 32.5 per cent from their first dollar of income.
You can imagine what went around the world: 'Don't bother coming to Australia because you'll be paying 32.5 per cent in tax of every dollar earnt, even though you're only a temporary worker for a short space of time in vital industries.' The advice from the Parliamentary Library was:
this new policy could substantially increase the incentives for tax evasion and
the number of working holiday makers may diminish rapidly as soon as visa holders perceive there is less economic benefit to undertaking work that most Australians are reluctant to do, such as picking fruit, cleaning and casual hospitality.
What do we know of the result? We know now that, over the last year to June this year, working holiday-maker numbers from the United Kingdom have dropped by nine per cent; from Ireland, they recorded a 46 per cent drop; Italy was down 24 per cent; and France was down 14 per cent. Why is this? Again, it is because of the bunyip aristocracy sitting back and not wanting to be involved in the discussion and the debate which actually affected them and their constituents and those people taking product out of their industries.
Thinking about these arguments, the member for Mayo again talked about the difference in apparent pay, as they see it. Those holiday-makers are currently—let's emphasise 'currently'—paying zero tax on every dollar earned and that has historically been the case. We did not attempt to change it when we were in government, as the member for Hunter said earlier on. It was not changed by the Howard government. This is being done in a capricious manner by the Liberal Party and the National Party to try and fix up their budget problems, which are all of their own making. And when they say to us that they want to level the playing field by introducing a 32.5 per cent tax and we object, we get pilloried. So they have now come back to 19 per cent. Of course as recently as Sunday, when being interviewed on TheInsiders, the finance minister said: 'Nineteen per cent is as far as we are we prepared to go. The budget cannot afford to cut taxes for foreign workers any further.' That did not last long.
Members of the National Party whose electorates are involved with horticulture or agriculture or tourism industry initially argued for 32.5 per cent and then argued for 19 per cent and today, apparently, are able to argue for 15 per cent because that happens to be a magic number that everyone likes. There is no science to it. It is a proposal which has come down because, well, it is different—it is not quite what the government wanted and it is not what the Labor Party wanted; therefore, let's strike a happy medium and go to 15 per cent. What is the justification? 'We do not have one.'
Mr Christensen: Pacific Islanders.
Mr SNOWDON: Pacific Islanders is the justification now. What was the justification previously when they were paying zero tax? Any answer? Let's ask ourselves these questions because the public are entitled to know what was going through the minds of those people in the National Party in particular when they discussed this issue. The member for Dawson said he would cross the floor. Remember? 'I will cross the floor because this is such a stupid thing.' Here is your opportunity. Very shortly we will be having a vote.
Mr Christensen: We have resolved it.
Mr SNOWDON: You have resolved it, have you? You think now that everything is hunky dory, that everything is happy, that you have done the right thing and that the people in your electorate are going to thank you for coming down firstly from 32½ per cent to 19 per cent. That is good. You have done well there. When they said: would you like, 10 ½ per cent or 19 per cent? What did you say? I will go for the 19 per cent, thank you very much? It is absurd. When they say: how about 15 per cent? Yes I will take 15 per cent—hands up. Well here is an opportunity to bring it down to 10½ per cent. When the vote comes on, just walk over the aisle and vote with us—show some guts. Look after your constituents and look after their interests. He is a lovely bloke, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I know he is thinking to himself: here is my opportunity to differentiate myself from my parliamentary colleagues. Here is an opportunity for you, Minister, to show some gumption and do something reasonable for your electorate.
We see time and time again the Treasurer come in here emboldened to describe us on this side as being conspiratorial, telling us we have got no vision, no standards, that we are corrupt—all the sorts of mealy mouthed stupid words that come out of his mouth almost every day. What has he done? He has gone from 32 ½ per cent to 19 per cent—and there is no room for any more movement—and he is very pleased now to be able to accept 15 per cent because that is a reasonable compromise. It is not good enough. The Australian public expect a lot more from us in this place. When you introduced the 32½ per cent in the first place, the National Farmers' Federation described, as the member for Hunter said, how they were blindsided by this approach because there had been no consultation, just as there had been no consultation about the 15 per cent. You have an opportunity here to do the right thing by the Australian community, to do the right thing by Australian workers and do the right thing by those travelling to this country to work as backpackers by giving them an incentive to come here, because we know the workforce has dropped off.
What do we say to those people who have lost hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars as a result of fruit not being picked this year because of the stupid decisions taken by this government? Whose responsibility is it? Are you prepared to own up to it? What does the Prime Minister say when he visits regional Australia? Does he say, 'I wanted 32 ½ per cent. You did not want that but that is what we wanted. Then we went to 19 per cent. Oh, bad luck, I do not know what impact it has had on your communities.' We know what the impact is, Prime Minister, Treasurer, agricultural minister.
The agriculture minister, for God's sake, what do we say about this man? What can we say about this man? Now he is a true representative of the bunyip aristocracy—there is no doubt about that—coming here feigning indignation every second day and then just basically saying whatever happens to come into his mind. He opens his mouth and lets the wind blow his tongue around. It is about time he changed his behaviour. It is about time he thought before he spoke. It is about time that he understood the reasonableness of the position which is being adopted by the Labor Party in this debate. It is about time he said to his fellow members of the National Party and indeed the government: 'We should be supporting this 10½ per cent because it is the right and reasonable thing to do. It is fair, it treats people appropriately and it is not a disincentive for backpackers to come to this country.'
The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources also should admit the failings of the system currently and the fact that people have got fruit lying on the ground as a direct result of the stupidity of the government and the decision makers within the government and the policies of the government. It is not anybody else's fault, just theirs. I say to my community, 'When you look at these people, look very closely. They do not bear great gifts. They come here and tell you fibs, they mislead you, they tell you all sorts of stories, they try to malign the Labor Party for standing up for your interests but the only people who are standing up for your interests are indeed the Labor Party, not your supposed friends in the National Party or the Liberal Party.'
Now is the time for the Liberal Party and the National Party to show that they are prepared to do something which is reasonable and adopt the 10½ per cent, which the Labor Party is proposing, and amend the legislation we have before the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It being almost 1:30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Chanukah
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:30): During the break between sitting weeks this year and next year, many Australians will be celebrating Chanukah so, while it is a bit early, this is the only chance to send some wishes. I am delighted to wish the Jewish community in Australia a happy and peaceful Chanukah.
For kids, Chanukah is a time of doughnuts and dreidels and gifts—eight days of festivities to look forward to throughout the year. Chanukah is also a time when the Jewish community comes together to celebrate the Maccabean Jews regaining control of Jerusalem and rededicating the temple. Antiochus had previously outlawed Judaism and looted the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Despite the lootings, the Maccabees found a small amount of oil by which to light the temple. They burnt the oil knowing there was only enough for one day, and the oil miraculously burnt for eight days. As this time, we can see it as a symbol for those who feel as though they are mired in darkness; there is light and goodness, which holds more potential than we realise. The Maccabees' sense of courage, faith and righteousness continues to live on in the Jewish community.
On the topic of goodness, the root of the Hebrew word for Chanukah means education. A crucial theme at the heart of the Jewish faith, and the dedication of the Jewish community to education has benefited Australia immensely. Today, I pay tribute to that dedication, which is so much a part of Judaism. Modern multicultural Australia should give us the opportunity to celebrate every occasion with joy, rather than avoid religious or cultural references out of fear. I wish, on behalf of the opposition, a happy and peaceful Chanukah.
Small Business
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (13:31): During the election campaign I spoke to many small businesses in Dunkley. Dunkley is home to over 16,000 small businesses, one of the contributing factors to why we have the highest economic growth of any Victorian federal electorate. It is not without trial and heartache. Successfully starting up a small business is difficult. I, myself, have owned my own small business, as did my father before me. And we, along with many of the Dunkley locals that I have spoken to, such as Danny at Il Castello Pizzeria or Sharon at the Pines Milk Bar, have battled the constant obstruction and hindrances of red tape.
I mentioned in my maiden speech that I am a Liberal because I believe in small government. Over-regulation strangles small businesses that often do not have the resources to cope with nanny-state bureaucracy. Often, they end up pushed out of the conversation because they do not have the resources to write a submission or to conduct self-advocacy, usually because they are busy trying to get through the day and keep their businesses afloat.
I am proud to be part of a government that supports small business. Our agenda includes protection from unfair contracts, ensuring that they are at the forefront of consultation as well as the 'shop local' campaign. It is imperative that we support our local small businesses in Dunkley or elsewhere and give them a chance by clearing the bureaucratic obstacles wherever we can.
Tuggeranong Charity Christmas Cards
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:33): Barbara Parsons established Tuggeranong Charity Christmas Cards 14 years ago. When she arrived in Tuggeranong from South Africa she noticed that if you wanted to buy a charity Christmas card your only option in Canberra's south was to go to a local supermarket. And once you take out the supermarket retailer's chunk of the sale price, only 15c in the dollar actually went to the charity whose name was on the card. Tuggeranong Charity Christmas Cards, on the other hand, is an entirely 100 per cent volunteer-run organisation. It means every dollar you pay for their charity cards is a dollar that goes straight to supporting the charity itself.
Today, Barbara Parsons is in her 80s. She remains one of the coordinators of this year's charity Christmas card appeal, but the job has become exhausting. It means, unfortunately, sadly, that this is the final year of its operation. But the cause is as worthy of Canberra's support as ever. This year's cards are supporting Epilepsy ACT, ACT Rescue and Foster, the Cancer Council, Cystic Fibrosis ACT, Pegasus—a great organisation—Sharing Places, Frontier Services and Legacy ACT. I encourage all Canberrans to drop into the charity Christmas card sale, which is now based at the Erindale Uniting Church. While you are there, take a moment to say, 'Thank you, Barbara; thank you to the service you have given to our community, thank you to your team of volunteers for all that you have given to Canberra and charities.'
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr DRUM ( Murray ) ( 13:34 ): I will take this opportunity to can congratulate Barnaby Joyce and Malcolm Turnbull on their leadership, in relation to the resolution of the backpacker tax issue. We have had the industry asking us for a 19c tax rate that would have been compatible with the UK, New Zealand and also Canada. The coalition was keen to get this whole issue finished some six weeks ago when we put this before the parliament. Then, along came Jacqui Lambie, and along came the ALP—on a little lead, like a puppy dog, with Jacqui Lambie giving them a little tummy rub; they were rolling on their backs and just could not get enough of this sort of stuff. This is the Labor Party playing games with the Australian people.
It was very obvious that we would be unable to get 19c through the Senate. What we had to do then was either dig our heels in and remain as obstinate as others would like us to be or be prepared to do a deal with the Senate, in order to get this whole issue put to bed. I congratulate Barnaby Joyce and Malcolm Turnbull for doing a deal that will produce results for people in my electorate of Shepparton. The Murray area will now go ahead and get the fruit taken off the trees. This will be a huge issue not just for the orchardists but also for the packaging industry, the processing industry and the transport industry. If the Labor Party really believe in 10 per cent, let us see what they do at the next election.
STACEY, Mr Charles
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (13:36): Last week, Charles Stacey of Bli Bli on the Sunshine Coast passed away, aged 94. My grandparents were early settlers and cane farmers in the area, and Charlie was by uncle. He was a cane farmer all his life, the fifth of six children and my mum's older brother. Like my father, he answered the call and enlisted in 1942 as a member of the 9th Battalion. He served at Milne Bay and Bougainville. At Milne Bay, the 9th Battalion numbered around 600 infantry, mostly from Brisbane and the Nambour area. They had little training. Milne Bay was the first defeat of the Japanese in the Pacific and ended the myth that the Japanese were invincible. It was a brutal, murderous encounter. It was as tough as war gets.
Our whole family was proud of Charlie's service to our nation. I learnt a lot from Charlie about the importance of service and sacrifice for country. Charlie was one of the last remaining members of the 9th Battalion. Charlie passed away on the same property that he was born and lived and worked all of his life. Our nation owes a huge debt of gratitude to those men of the 9th Battalion. We must never forget the sacrifices they made for all of us. Charlie is survived by his wife, Bev, and his stepson, Stephen, who cared for him so well. Rest in peace, Charlie. Lest we forget.
Wright Electorate: Defence Force
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (13:37): I rise to inform the House that soldiers serving abroad will very soon get a taste of country hospitality from my electorate. The Fassifern Rotary Club has put together 60 gift packs to send over to our serving soldiers, made up of local product, stuff I have taken from the office, puzzles, writing paper, protein powder, Tim Tams—anything our local business men and women and parents with children serving think might be a suitable gift.
Within my electorate we have the Canungra Combat Training Centre, so we have a strong understanding of the sacrifice that families make when their children, loved ones, parents, uncles and aunts are away serving. To put into perspective how large my electorate is, for me to attend every dawn service in my electorate, I would need to win eight consecutive elections, and only after 26 years of constant service could I return to the first place where I attended a dawn service. That indicates the number of memorials and cenotaphs in my electorate, where we pay homage to the brave men and women who serve overseas, who fight and provide a blanket of security for us as a nation to sleep under each night, and for that we should always be grateful. Merry Christmas to our troops overseas.
Braddon Electorate: Safer Communities Fund
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (13:39): I am deeply concerned that the government have failed to keep another of their promises to the Braddon electorate. During the 2016 federal election campaign, the former member for Braddon, Brett Whiteley, promised $74,777 through the Safer Communities Fund to Burnie City Council for CCTV cameras and infrastructure along the North Terrace boardwalk and in Wilson Street. But now that the election is over, the government have backflipped and are asking the Burnie City Council to jump through hoops to get this funding through an application process that has not even opened yet. Even if the council is successful in its application, the government say funding will be subject to budget processes, so we cannot even be sure the council will get the full amount promised.
I agree with what Mr Whiteley and Burnie Mayor Anita Dow said at the time, that residents and tourist flock to the boardwalk during summer and these cameras are needed to improve safety. But these cameras will not be in place this summer and probably not the summer next year or any year after for that matter. It is disappointing to see the government apparently breaking its promise of important community safety funding. It is just another example of a government failing to stand by its commitments to my electorate. The promise should be kept and I call on the minister to make sure it is.
Leichhardt Electorate: Broadband
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:40): Last Friday, the NBN network was switched on for more than 4,100 premises in Leichhardt, including 900 fibre-to-the node premises in Cooktown town centre; 340 fixed wireless premises around Kuranda and Kowrowa, with construction of the fibre to the node in Kuranda currently underway; and 2,900 fibre-to-the-node premises in the northern beaches of Cairns. This follows on from 2,400 fibre-to-the-node premises coming online in Edge Hill late last month, and it means that residents and businesses can start ordering the NBN from retail service providers from this week.
The rollout in Leichhardt is gathering pace thanks to NBN's more straightforward network construction and the company's strong relationship with local contractors. It is important that customers buy a plan that is suitable for their needs. Many of the complaints that are coming through to my office are because people are buying the cheapest and the slowest package that is available and expecting it to perform.
Fibre to the node provides average wholesale broadband speeds of around 70 megabits per second, while in outlying areas fixed wireless offers wholesale download speeds of up to 50 megabits per second. I urge people to do their research to make sure their access to the NBN is fast and reliable, so that households and small businesses can be more productive and better connected for years to come.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Community Service Awards
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:42): On 16 November, local volunteers came together in November for the third annual Kingsford Smith Community Service and Vi Robbins Volunteer of the Year awards. The Community Service Awards are an opportunity for us to say thank you to our wonderful local volunteers on behalf of our community, and to recognise their great generosity and hard work that often goes unseen and unrecognised. Every single one of our 40 award winners had an inspirational community spirit and story to tell. From Jean Van Dam, also known as Jean the Database Queen, who for the last five years has overseen the client record management system at the Deli Women and Children's Centre, to Judith Vecellio, who has been running the Randwick Botany Little Athletics with her husband Tony for the last 47 years; they are all amazing people.
Coogee's Sophie Smith was named the Vi Robbins Volunteer of the Year. After losing her first born triplet sons, Sophie established the Running for Premature Babies group, to raise money for the Royal Hospital for Women's Newborn Intensive Care Centre. Over their lifetime, they have raised over $2 million, with the funds going towards groundbreaking research and vital medical equipment. In the recent Sydney half marathon, 500 runners ran in Sophie's team. Just recently, Sophie completed the New York marathon with a group of 16 runners, raising a further $200,000 for the hospital. She is an amazing person and well deserving of this honour. Thank you to all who attended the event and, of course, thank you to our wonderful community volunteers.
Brisbane Electorate: Queensland Country Women's Association
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (13:43): On the weekend, I am very, very proud to say I became the first male in Brisbane to become a member of the Queensland Country Women's Association. I wanted to put on record a few words about the role that the Country Women's Association plays in the Brisbane community and, indeed, around Queensland. Organised into 20 divisions and with over 250 branches across the state, the QCWA is the largest and most widespread women's organisation. The QCWA for many years has been about women, and now men too, coming together to make new friends, learn new skills and get involved as volunteers in their community. They are driven by the desire to help others and I admire their contribution to connecting people and building community spirit, in times when people in our community are feeling disconnected or alone.
While the QCWA is very much a longstanding and venerable institution, being formed in 1922, I must report that on the weekend I witnessed a very vibrant and diverse group of people, many in their 20s and 30s, and it left me in no doubt that the organisation has never been stronger and has never been more relevant to our community, as it just keeps kicking goals all around Queensland. I would like to thank Brisbane City Night Branch President Ann Bullen, Jennifer Bray for organising the event, Christine King, the QCWA Greater Brisbane Division President and all of the other strong and independent Queensland women I met on the weekend. Thank you for welcoming me into your organisation.
Perth Electorate: Charlies Fresh Food Market
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (13:45): I rise to celebrate a wonderful Australian story that is a vital part of my home community in the federal electorate of Perth. It is the story of Charlie and Rose Tricoli. Charlie was born in 1939 and in 1956 immigrated from Italy to Australia at 17 years of age, not speaking a single word of English. In 1967, he married his wife Rose and started work in a wonderful grocery store at the time called Rosie's. With a lot of hard work, blood, sweat and tears, the empire grew at a rate of knots and, by 1980, Charlie and Rose relocated to larger premises on the same site, on the corner of Walter Road and Brown Avenue in Morley, in the federal electorate of Perth, and renamed the store Charlies.
By that time, Charlies had grown to 400 square metres in size. But, again through continuous hard work and serving the community, it did not take long before Charlies grew to the empire it is today and relocated to larger premises, occupying 1,600 square metres. Charlies is now called Charlies Fresh Food Market, and people come from far and wide to purchase the quality Italian produce and to enjoy the friendly service that it offers. For all those who come to the federal electorate of Perth, I urge you to get to Charlies and have a Charlies special continental roll and an espresso. It is an absolutely wonderful family business, and it keeps the heart of my local community beating stronger than ever.
Sloper, Commodore Graham
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:47): Commodore Graham Sloper—what more can I say? Your dedication to the Australian Navy, to all those who have dedicated their own lives in service to our country and to our community on the Northern Beaches is beyond words. In the Navy you rose from first joining the Royal Australian Naval College to become Director-General ADF Recruiting and commander of the RAN Air Station and HMAS Albatross, accumulating 39 years of service. The Navy could not have described you better, Sir: noisy, cheerful and focussed on winning.
Forthright and courageous, you are generous and unselfish with everything. Larger than life, you have enriched not only the Navy but also every cause you have thrown your unparalleled energy and devotion behind, never seeking personal acclaim. The residents of Mackellar are fortunate you decided to settle on the Northern Beaches with your amazing family. If I may mention just two of the many organisations you lead. As president of the Avalon Beach RSL Sub Branch and convenor of the iconic Avalon Beach Military Tattoo, you fight for veterans past, present and future. Commander Sloper, thank you for your service and thank you for your passion and dedication in making this a better place and all of us better people.
Israel: Military Law
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (13:48): I rise to speak about the consequences of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank—a young Palestinian girl arrested and tried by military courts. Israel has two separate legal systems: civilian law, which prohibits jailing anyone under 14, and military law, which Palestinians are subject to, which allows people as young as 12 to be jailed.
Dima al-Wawi was arrested just two months after her 12th birthday, probably the youngest Palestinian tried and imprisoned through the military courts. Dima was arrested at the entrance of an Israeli settlement near her village. An Israeli settler reportedly took a knife from her and called the soldiers. She was interrogated twice that day, with no lawyer or family member present. She accepted a plea bargain, pleading guilty to attempted voluntary manslaughter and illegal possession of a knife and was convicted to 4½ months in jail. According to Defence of Children International, it is common for Palestinian children to 'maintain their innocence, but plead guilty as it is the fastest way to get out of the system'. Trials can be delayed for almost a year, and bail is rarely granted.
After sentencing, Dima, like nearly 60 per cent of Palestinian child detainees, was imprisoned within Israel, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Upon release, Dima provided a harrowing account of her experience, which indicates that she was subject to long interrogations and threats by soldiers, such as: 'You will be convicted, Dima, and it will be a life imprisonment.' (Time expired)
Boothby Electorate: Belaire Medical Centre
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (13:50): On Wednesday, 17 November I was given the honour of opening the new Belair Medical Centre in my electorate of Boothby. I was pleased to be joined at this new allied health facility, complete with specialist rooms, by my state parliamentary colleague, Mr Sam Duluk MP, member for Davenport, and the Mayor of the City of Mitcham, His Worship Mr Glenn Spear. This impressive new facility will serve the growing community throughout the Mitcham Hills. I am proud to be part of the coalition government that continues to deliver funding to projects such as this one, which was spearheaded by practice owner Dr Helen Roxburgh.
The new allied health space, located at 20 Main Road, Belair, offers specific services to youth, women and the elderly and provides a suite of services, including psychologists, physiotherapists, a urologist, a gastroenterologist, a lactation consultant and an occupational therapist. Patient care is at the centre of the Belair medical practice, and I cannot think of a nicer space for patients to visit. The rooms have been beautifully designed and decorated, including a number of John Olsen prints and original artworks by Dr Roxburgh's husband Phil. It is lovely to see Australian art celebrated in such a manner. Again, I congratulate Dr Helen Roxburgh and the team at the Belair Medical Centre on the opening of their new facilities that will serve our community well into the future.
Financial Planning
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:51): Colleagues, it gives me great pleasure to welcome into the House today five members of the Albury Wodonga chapter of the Financial Planning Association. Wayne, Megan, Neil, Ron and Taki, thanks for coming and joining us. I also acknowledge the work of David, who could not be here today.
As many of you would know, certified financial planners provide great services in our community and, particularly in times of crisis in our lives, they come to our rescue. They provide advice, they act as counsellors, they give us access to networks and they help manage crisis times for many of us when we need that extra bit of help, particularly with our money. Over lunch today, we talked about some of the issues that financial planners are looking at. They are talking particularly about the higher costs of doing business in rural and regional Australia, managing the increasing amount of red tape and compliance that they have to deal with, and unique issues facing farmers as they go about estate planning for older people trying to get their aged care organised. We talked particularly about problems we have liaising with Centrelink as the rules around pensions next year are changing and asking Centrelink if it would reinstate their quarterly newsletter to people explaining what the rules are.
Colleagues, later on this afternoon we are going to debate and, hopefully, pass the Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge all the financial planners around Australia, acknowledge their professionalism and say thank you. (Time expired)
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr GEE (Calare) (13:53): I wish to thank all of our local orchardists from the Calare electorate, who have worked so hard to find a resolution to the backpacker tax issue. They always lead the state and nation in advocating for our region and this vitally important industry. They have been actively engaged in this issue from the very beginning. Indeed, last week a delegation came to this very parliament to urge all parties to find a resolution before the summer harvest. They were Bruce Reynolds, Daniel McClymont and Peter West. While they were here, we also used the opportunity to lobby for greater access for our fruit to foreign markets and to get some progress on the vexed issue of export protocols. In addition to those three gentlemen, other local orchardists heavily engaged with the backpacker tax issue include Bernard and Fiona Hall, who operate an orchard, a world-class packing operation and a burgeoning export business; irrepressible rural advocate and local media star Guy Gaeta and his wife, Sim; Tim and Jayne West; Michael and Kim Cunial; Jamie and Nina McClymont; Zac and Thelma Rossi—and this House wishes Zac a speedy recover from his recent ill health; and also David Gartrell, an apple grower and chair of Appledale Processors Co-operative in Orange for over 30 years.
I have spoken to our local orchardists and they are very happy with the 15 per cent tax rate. They are happy that this government has been able to find a compromise on the issue and they thank all parties for their goodwill and endeavours in finding a resolution. Now it is a case of getting on with harvesting our wonderful local produce, which is the envy of the world. Our local orchardists have— (Time expired)
Burt Electorate: Rail
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:54): The federal Labor government left office with $500 million locked into the budget for rail in Perth—and what was the first thing the Abbott-Turnbull government did when it came in? It ripped that money out, leaving WA high and dry. Since then, we have seen no money committed by this government for rail in Western Australia. The only reason we ended up with any money for public transport was a GST compensation package, which the Barnett government used for an unfunded and chronically delayed airport link.
So I listened to the Prime Minister's infrastructure statement last week with some cynicism, but Mr Turnbull did tell us that he wants to work with state governments to create an urban rail plan for capital cities. Well, have I got good news for Mr Turnbull: in Perth, Mark McGowan and WA Labor have a plan ready to go. Metronet is a comprehensive plan to connect Perth's suburbs and fix our congestion crisis. In my electorate, that means building the circle line to connect the Thornlie and Mandurah lines, finally giving residents of Canning Vale the rail that they so badly need. This means fewer cars on heavily congested roads like Ranford Road, making our streets safer, particularly for the students of Carey Baptist College who join us in the gallery today.
Here is my challenge to you, Mr Turnbull. Your party has ignored WA's congestion crisis for three years. Whether it is Colin Barnett, Tony Abbott or you, you have left WA without rail funding for far too long. We have got the plan; now it is time for the federal government to come to the party. So stop ripping off Western Australians and start investing in Metronet.
Canning Electorate: Mandurah Junior Council
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (13:56): Two weeks ago, I attended the Mandurah Junior Council graduation ceremony at the Mandurah Performing Arts Centre, overlooking the beautiful estuary at the heart of my electorate. The junior council consists of 38 student representatives from 19 local primary schools. The purpose of the program is to give young people a voice in the city of Mandurah's governance and to educate them in local government. Junior councillors participate in council meetings, gain experience in leadership and together undertake a community project. This year, the junior council's project engaged children and families in mental health education. This involved participating in a workshop with Act-Belong-Commit, a WA mental health initiative. The workshop taught positive mental health behaviours and encouraged the students to share them with their classmates. I was also able to attend the session and share my reflections on life as an MP. I am pleased to report the junior council developed their leadership during their tenure. They have learnt about how to better serve their community as future local, state and federal representatives.
I commend Alisha Joynes, junior council coordinator, for her role in youth engagement and her ongoing efforts in supporting the students in their work. To junior mayor Kalli Chamos, to deputy junior mayor Chloe Gee and to all the Mandurah junior councillors, congratulations again. Remember that you are all leaders in your respective schools and classrooms and continue to serve those around you. I look forward to meeting the junior councillors of 2017.
Climate Change
Mr HART (Bass) (13:57): Last week, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from Micah Australia while they were in Canberra for the Voices for Justice National Gathering. Their commitment to social justice and their work advocating for public and political change that addresses the root causes of poverty, here and overseas, is to be commended. Our conversation touched on many of the social issues facing Australia today and I wish to draw the attention of the House to one of these issues in particular. Climate change is already hurting the poorest communities in our region. Our Pacific neighbours are facing the very real threat of rising sea levels, which have the potential to displace entire populations over time. On Saturday, I had the opportunity to host the Timor-Leste Ambassador to Australia, Mr Abel Guterres, in my home city of Launceston.
The combined effects of sea-level rise and climate change makes our near neighbours in the Pacific particularly vulnerable to extreme sea-level events. Indeed, the science continues to indicate that some of our closest Pacific Islands neighbours will be under water within a century, despite global commitments to reducing carbon. Indeed, Micah Australia's message to me was that Australia needs to do more to contribute to a just, peaceful and sustainable Asia-Pacific region. This was at the forefront of my mind as the ambassador and I discussed the Australian-Timorese relationship. As one of the world's wealthiest nations, and with the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions of any developed country, Australia can afford to lead by example. (Time expired)
Forrest Electorate: White Ribbon Gala Dinner
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (13:59): I would like to thank the foreign minister for providing a very important message to the White Ribbon gala dinner in my electorate, in Bunbury, over the weekend. The funding from that particular dinner was shared by not only the White Ribbon effort but also the Waratah Centre. The Waratah Centre provides free, specialised intervention services for people who have experienced sexual assault and sexual abuse as well as for family domestic violence purposes or for those who need to know how to deal with the issues and impacts of the trauma in their lives from such abuse, assault and violence against children, young people, families and family members, and to know that each one of those forms of violence is preventable.
It was a very good event, and it was one that was deliberately set to raise funds as well for Waratah. They do an amazing job. I would also like to commend all of those involved in the dinner. They did an enormous amount of work and were able to generate significant funds for the work of both Waratah and White Ribbon Day. Again, I thank the foreign minister for that message. It was greatly respected and appreciated by everybody present.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Housing Affordability
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. An hour ago the Premier of New South Wales confirmed it is the position of his government that negative gearing reforms should be considered. Given that the Premier at the state of the heart of Australia's housing affordability crisis has put negative gearing reform on the table, why does the Prime Minister continue to rule it out, and is getting rich parents still his only policy on housing affordability?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): I think I will check exactly what the Premier said before I take the Leader of the Opposition's word on it. He has a bit of a track record for misrepresentation.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Shorten: I seek leave to table the transcript. It was a question from the Financial Review: 'Do you and your government think negative gearing is a problem?' 'I think I have an answer to that. My answer is: yes, it should be considered.' There it is; black and white.
Leave not granted.
Mr TURNBULL: We know that the Leader of the Opposition has form in misrepresentation and distortion, but he—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Yes, he is free to wave around whatever he likes. But the one thing he is not very good at is sticking to the facts. Normally, the glass jaw takes a bit longer to appear than this. I mean, really! Seriously, I think we would all be sensitive to charges of misrepresentation if we were so assiduous at it as the Leader of the Opposition. One day after another, any resemblance between what he says and the truth is a matter of coincidence. It is absolutely a matter of coincidence. I am not saying he is never accurate; I am saying he is only accurate when it suits him—when it suits his own political purpose. We have seen him distort and misrepresent and spread falsehoods on one issue after another.
It is so touching to see the way he wants to be the ferocious class warrior. Oh yes, Bill Shorten, defender of the poor and the—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is, again, delaying the Manager of Opposition Business. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On three matters, Mr Speaker: firstly, addressing members by their correct title—
The SPEAKER: I have dealt with that.
Mr BURKE: secondly, on direct relevance; and thirdly, I thought I would give him a chance to read the document; it is right in front of him.
The SPEAKER: No. In fact, while the Manager of Opposition Business is on his feet he might remain on his feet. There is a line here and we are very close to it, so the Manager of Opposition Business can grab that bit of paper back. The Leader of the Opposition has already sought leave to table it. It has been rejected.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, I do not want you to do that. I do not want to eject you under standing order 94(a). I really do not. Thank you. The Prime Minister has been asked a question, which I have listened to very carefully—
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will cease interjecting, and whoever else is bellowing in my left ear will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister was asked a question about negative gearing but with a preamble and a fairly broad tagline. I am listening to the Prime Minister carefully. He is only about half way through the answer, and I will keep listening to him.
Mr TURNBULL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Yes, the Leader of the Opposition, in his unlikely pose as a tribune of the people, a champion of the pressed and the downtrodden—yes, this is the person who stood up for the workers at Chiquita mushrooms, didn't he. He absolutely sold them down the river. And what about Cleanevent and his friend Cesar Melhem? Did he ever call up Cesar and say, 'Cesar, that was disgraceful'? No, absolutely not. He is his best friend, champions him, parachutes him into the Victorian parliament. It is competing between Cesar Melhem, who sells workers down the river, takes payments for the union and who was talking about kickbacks yesterday—no doubt, kickbacks were on his mind, when you read what is in the paper about Cesar Melhem being investigated for corrupt practices as recommended by the Heydon commission.
But then, of course, not content with promoting Cesar, he comes on Kimberley Kitching and puts her in the Senate. This is somebody who is filling in safety forms, safety examinations, for other people and putting workers' lives at risks. What is her reward? A seat in the Senate from the Labor Party. (Time expired)
Employment
Mr GOODENOUGH ( Moore ) ( 14:06 ): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's economic reforms are delivering strong jobs growth? How will the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission support the one million Australians employed in the building and construction sector?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:06): I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member raises a critical point that shows the clear line between the pro-growth policies of the government and the antibusiness, anti-investment, anti-jobs policies of the Labor Party. The Labor Party at the election, by its own admission, would blow the budget out by $16½ billion. They owned up to that. They would push for more protectionist policies that we know will cost jobs. Their left wing, to which the Leader of the Opposition is increasingly captive, rail against the free trade agreements, which we know are delivering jobs across Australia.
Right now in the parliament this week the Labor Party stands against the restoration of the rule of law to the construction sector. Not content with their opposition to the registered organisations bill, not content with trying to protect union officials that rip off their members and corruptly deal with the hardworking members' dues that go to those unions, now they stand against the restoration of the rule of law to the construction sector. Why do they do that? They do that because they are a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the most militant unions in the country, the CFMEU. It is a signal of the way in which Labor has changed that Bob Hawke deregistered the Builders Labourers' Federation and the Leader of the Opposition defends their successor, the construction wing of the CFMEU.
It is little wonder that the Leader of the Opposition does this. He has consistently backed the union bosses against the workers. We see the reports today that his close ally and friend Cesar Melhem is under investigation by the Fair Work Commission for allegations that he entered into secret side deals and kickbacks. He was named by the Heydon royal commission as being suspected of corrupt practices. This is the fundamental issue of the integrity of the Labor Party. Are they prepared to stand up for the rule of law in the management of unions? We know the answer to that is no; they opposed the registered organisations bill. Are they prepared to stand up for the rule of law in the construction sector? We know the answer to that is no. The Labor Party of 2016 is not the party of Bob Hawke or Paul Keating; it is a party captured, dominated and controlled by militant unions and the bosses that exploit their members.
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:10): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Was the president of the National Farmers' Federation accurate this morning when, in describing the government's chaotic handling of the backpacker tax, she said, 'We were absolutely blindsided by an item in the budget that came in, that we were not consulted about—'
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will resume his seat, perhaps somewhere convenient, if the Manager of Opposition Business moves his books. I have cautioned members many times on interjecting while the question is on. The member for Deakin is warned. The member for Hunter will begin his question again.
Mr FITZGIBBON: My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Was the president of the National Farmers' Federation accurate this morning when, in describing the government's chaotic handling of the backpacker tax, she said, 'We were absolutely blindsided by an item in the budget that came in, that we were not consulted about, that said that they were going to put the backpacker tax up to 32 per cent from nought per cent'?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:11): First of all, I would like to congratulate him. He has made it to question No. 2! It is an auspicious day. I am not quite sure about what happened in the 'badget'. I imagine they found a badger in the 'badget'. I am not quite sure what you do with a 'badget'. What I can say is that the backpacker tax rate of 32½ per cent was brought about by Mr Wayne Swan, who now sits as the member for Lilley. He is the person—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And stop interjecting, Member for Grayndler. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Once again, they are not addressing members by their titles.
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister needs to address members by their correct titles. It would also help—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: This might take a long time.
Mr Joyce interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have not called the Deputy Prime Minister yet. Deputy Prime Minister, you do not have the call. I have not finished addressing the House. It is early in question time. In response to the Manager of Opposition Business: yes; the Deputy Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles. It would assist the Speaker in hearing everything that the Deputy Prime Minister says if the level of interjections are lower. I would like to ask the House to lower the volume, or I will start doing it. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
Mr JOYCE: I know that they get very excited when the member for Hunter gets a question. I can understand why they would raise their voices. But it is very important to understand that it was the former Treasurer, now the member for Lilley—and he seems to be here for a fair while. The reason we had a 32½ per cent rate is by reason of the actions of the previous government, the Labor government.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal brought about a result in November last year that meant that we had to not allow them to get the tax-free threshold. What we did was made sure we had a long form of investigation, a long form of report that included the NFF. The NFF was part of it. The VFF was part of it. The NT Farmers were part of it. When we came to an agreement on a rate, the rate was 19 per cent. Everybody agreed to it.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting!
Mr JOYCE: The problem was that the Leader of the Opposition and member for Maribyrnong went into an agreement with the senator for Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie, where his senior economic advice comes from. This led to the ridiculous position where they were basically going to try and blow the show up. That is what he is really on about. He is a person who cannot be trusted. He is duplicitous—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned.
Mr JOYCE: in his actions in how he goes about it. He is a person who has no interest in actually bringing about a result. He just wants to fight. He probably gets that desire, that zeal for the fight, from his days in the union—where they can go into an area where things have been resolved and create chaos. The dilemma that we were placed in was we made sure, we made the promise, that we would resolve this issue by the time that the rate went back to 32½ per cent, which was 1 January next year. We made that promise. We honoured that promise. We delivered on that promise. And right now the Labor Party still hold to their promise of a 10½ per cent rate. Is the member for Maribyrnong going to stand up now and show his authenticity and show he is not duplicitous by saying he stands behind the 10½ per cent rate? Will you do that? Of course you will not, because you cannot be trusted. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (14:15): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the findings of the latest OECD report on the continued strong performance of the Australian economy? How is the government working to strengthen our economic performance to promote higher wages, more employment and greater job security for hardworking Australians?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:16): I thank the member for Bowman for his question.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will cease interjecting. That is his final warning.
Mr MORRISON: Despite the numerous challenges that we face economically—low world growth; weak trade growth; low wages growth, which is characteristic of all the advanced economies around the world, which is pointed out in the OECD report—despite the fact that we are transitioning from a once-in-a-lifetime mining-investment boom and despite the fact that we are dealing with the erosion of what has been a century-old coal-based energy advantage which has been receding, cheered on by those opposite as they have cheered on the closure of places like Hazelwood and others, and despite the uneven impact of globalisation and technological change around the world, but also particularly here in this country as well, the OECD confirms again in this report today that the Australian economy leads the advanced world.
Our rate of growth continues to be higher than the OECD average, as it has indeed been since this government was first elected in 2013 in every single year. The Turnbull government is committed to ensuring that we continue the pro-growth, pro-investment, pro-higher-real-wages, pro-employment and pro-jobs-growth policies which involve supporting businesses to be able to give workers more wages and more hours so they can increase their standards of living. We are growing faster than Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Netherlands, Japan, Singapore and New Zealand. All of this is pointed out in the OECD report today. Our jobs growth is higher than the OECD average, and, indeed, our unemployment rate is lower than the OECD average.
This country has enjoyed—and not through any lack of effort from the hardworking Australians who have been out there making this happen for the last 25 years—25 years of consecutive annual economic growth. This is an extraordinary achievement that is the product of the hardworking Australians who have been out there making it happen for 25 years, the investment of businesses and the good policy settings which were followed by the Hawke-Keating government and the Howard-Costello government. These are policies that this side of the House continue to honour. We continue to pursue those policies and support those policies that set up 25 years of consecutive economic growth. Those opposite have abandoned those policies. Those opposite have abandoned the economic policies of Bob Hawke to adopt the economic policies of Bob Brown. They take economic growth for granted and they assume they can continue to tax Australian businesses, tax Australian small businesses and tax hardworking Australians even more and more and more. Whether they invest, whether they work, whether they save, their answer is to tax hardworking Australians more and more. That is not how you grow an economy.
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:19): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week in question time, the Deputy Prime Minister said the current funding for the promised 450 gigalitres was insufficient, saying, 'You have not got a hope in Hades of delivering 450 gigs—not a hope.' One week later, is that still the Deputy Prime Minister's position?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:19): I welcome the opportunity to bring to light the fact that we are dealing with a Basin Plan that was actually written by the Labor Party, a Basin Plan for which all the incongruities were orchestrated by the Labor Party. It is interesting to see that the Labor Party has not suggested solutions. What we really need is for the Leader of the Opposition to come to the dispatch box and start suggesting what the solutions are.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr JOYCE: I will take the interjection. As completely laid out in the Basin Plan, as written by the Australian Labor Party. We look forward to it. As the member for Watson knows, it prescribes the amount in there, doesn't it, Member for Watson? $1.77 billion. That is correct, isn't it, Member for Watson? Just nod. That is correct, isn't it? And, after you take out the works and measures for $200 million, it leaves you $1.57 billion. Isn't that correct, Member for Watson? This is exactly what is in the Basin Plan. Isn't that correct, Member for Watson? And, at 7.17(2)(b), it describes the conditions on which you can spend that money, doesn't it, Member for Watson? Yes. And you wrote it, didn't you, Member for Watson? Yes. So all the problems are your problems.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will cease interjecting.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:21): We have present in the gallery this afternoon two former members of this House: the former member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, and the former member for Greenway, Louise Markus. We welcome you both again.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Environment
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. In a Senate committee report tabled yesterday, Australia's biggest power company, AGL, which runs coal-fired generators like Loy Yang in Victoria and Bayswater in New South Wales, called for a clear national plan for the orderly retirement of coal-fired generators. For the first time ever, the companies running coal-fired power stations are joining with affected communities, unions and environment groups in calling for a government-led orderly and just transition to a clean economy. Minister, will you do what the Senate committee report recommended and take a plan to the December meeting of the COAG Energy Council, or, for this government, is 'plan' still just another four-letter word?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:22): I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. Just last week I got a question from the member for Melbourne and I said that when he was thinking up that question he was sipping his latte and putting his sandals up on the table in Brunswick Street. But, lo and behold, after question time, the member for Melbourne put out a press release in which he said he was offended because I was playing the man. So I take this opportunity to apologise to the member for Melbourne because I found out he is not a latte man, he is a mocha man, and they were not sandals—you put your Birkenstocks up on the table.
We are dealing with a transition in the Australian energy sector. We have seen eight out of the 12 most emission intensive power stations close over the last five years and, with the announcement that Hazelwood will close at the end of March next year, that will be nine. There is a transition. The member for Melbourne referred to the report that was tabled in the parliament in the Senate yesterday. Dare I say, it was leaked by somebody—who knows who—before it was officially tabled. But when you are looking at the reports that are being named by the member for Melbourne it is always important to go and look at some of the evidence that was put before those Senate inquiries. We went to the Hansard, and there was evidence given to this Senate inquiry on coal fired power stations from a Mr Mersmann, the director of the mining, chemicals and energy workers union in Germany. Mr Mersmann was brought out here by the ACTU, and you would think that, as he had been brought out by Labor to give evidence to a coal power plant inquiry, he would say that it is the end of coal. But he was asked this question about Germany by our colleague Senator Hume:
How many coal-fired power stations are being built?
Mr Mersmann replied:
Not many; four or five, maximum.
The next question from Senator Hume was:
Is coal-fired power being imported into Germany from Poland?
The answer from Mr Mersmann was:
Yes, of course.
When he was asked what was happening to electricity prices he said:
They have increased.
The bottom line is that every country is different. In Australia, 60 per cent of our power is being generated by coal, and we have a transition plan which involves putting energy security as the No. 1 priority. We are dealing with a 'trilemma' of issues: energy security, energy affordability and a lower emissions future. We will not sacrifice blue-collar jobs in the regions in order to win Greens votes in the city, which is not just the position of the Greens but, unfortunately, is the position that has now been joined by the Labor Party, who are in partnership with the Greens—a bit like they were during Julia Gillard and Bob Brown's time.
Australian Building and Construction Commission
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (14:25): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the ABCC will benefit the agricultural sector and restore the rule of law on construction sites around the country? What hurdles stand in the way of achieving this reform?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:25): I thank the member for Flynn for his question and note the promise that was made at the election for the $215,000 preliminary study to connect Gladstone to Toowoomba, connecting it up to the inland rail and extending that corridor of commerce from Melbourne all the way through to Gladstone. I also note the $45 million Gladstone boardwalk project that the CFMEU did their very best, in their thuggish way, to threaten workers and try to extend this project to extort money out of the people—the taxpayers. What we always realise, of course, is that the people building the project just put that on the price and the people who pay are the taxpayers. The people who pay are the mums and dads who have to buy the houses. The people who pay are everybody else. It is almost like there is a cultural cliff within the Labor Party that believes that the CFMEU has a right to extort this money from other people, and you can see this in their actions.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr JOYCE: An article in The Sydney Morning Herald—and this was definitely said outside the parliament—published on 24 May 2015 said that:
Hadgkiss gave evidence that a CFMEU official, Shaun Reardon, had made late-night threatening phone calls to a female Fair Work inspector
At the time, Reardon was a White Ribbon anti-domestic violence ambassador.
The pattern of intimidation goes back a long way.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will cease interjecting.
Mr JOYCE: The article goes on:
In March, Justice Tracey of the Federal Court found that several CFMEU officials, including John Setka, Shaun Reardon and Craig Johnston, had engaged in acts of intimidation in 2012 during a dispute in the Melbourne central business district with construction company Grocon.
The judge found that workers were met by protesters, led by Setka, Reardon and Johnston, hurling abuse and threats including "scabs", "dogs", "rats", "you will die", and "I am going to kill your family".
This is the sort of culture in the CFMEU. It goes on. In the Financial Review we find a wonderful and very interesting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: You will not be surprised that my point of order is on direct relevance. The question was about extending a non-existent railway line to somewhere else in Queensland.
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I am listening to the Deputy Prime Minister carefully. The question was about that and other matters as well.
Mr JOYCE: Mr Luke Collier called a female inspector an 'f'ing s-blank-t', asking her if she had brought kneepads as 'you're going to be sucking off these f'ing dogs all day'. That was in the Financial Review. And, of course, there are no bounds to this. We see back—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. If members were to look back several months ago on language that was used whilst it was being quoted, a quote does not, of itself, obviate the need for proper parliamentary language. This matter has been addressed in the Senate. I am practical on the matter, but the Deputy Prime Minister has now strayed beyond what is acceptable.
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:29): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's earlier answer. As a result of water entitlement prices doubling in some major catchments of the Murray-Darling Basin, has the Deputy Prime Minister been trying to secure additional funds to guarantee that the 450 gigalitres can be delivered, or has the Deputy Prime Minister been trying to cut government funding to the Murray-Darling Basin?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:29): I thank the honourable member for his question and thought he might understand his own act, which he wrote. He would know full well, if he was competent, that there is a review in 2019. You would remember writing that, wouldn't you?
Building and Construction Industry
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline why it is important to restore the rule of law on building sites across the country? How does this compare with the approach to the union movement in other countries?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:30): I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. He would know that it is important to restore the rule of law on building and construction sites in Australia by bringing back the Australian Building and Construction Commission, because he would know, as most members on this side of the House do, that the last time the ABCC existed it saved consumers $7½ billion in costs and it increased productivity by 16 per cent in the building and construction sector while the ABCC was in place. That is one of the reasons it needs to be brought back into existence.
Our approach to building and construction sites and bringing back the rule of law and bringing the unions to heel with respect to building and construction is very fair and it is very middle of the road. I am asked how this compares to other countries. One of the countries which I would like to compare it to is Cuba because I have noticed an outpouring of praise for the former President of Cuba Fidel Castro in the last 24 hours from members of the Labor Party. But here is what Human Rights Watch had to say about Fidel Castro's Cuba:
Under Fidel Castro, the Cuban government refused to recognize the legitimacy of Cuban human rights organizations, alternative political parties, independent labor unions, or a free press. He … denied … the Red Cross and … Human Rights Watch access to the island to investigate human rights conditions.
So Fidel Castro actually suppressed independent unions in Cuba—a much more extreme measure than the government is taking to try and restore the rule of law.
But, in the last 24 hours, Labor appears to have rediscovered their inner communists, because this is what our old friend Senator Kim Carr said on the passing of Fidel Castro: 'Vale Fidel Castro, extraordinary 20th century figure. Survived 50-year embargo and 638 CIA attempts on life using ex-lovers.' That is kind of in the weird category. But the member for Hindmarsh said: 'Fidel Castro went from law student to revolutionary leader, communist figurehead and polarising global icon. RIP Fidel.' This guy is on a first name basis with Fidel Castro! I suppose he calls the Ceausescus 'Nicolae and Elena', as well, does he?
It does not stop there. Troy Bramston exposed today that Shorten often has talked about seeing Castro give one of his speeches that went for hours: 'It was amazing!' Shorten gushed. Oh Lord, save us from soft-boiled lefties!
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Leichhardt is warned.
Mr Snowdon: Lingiari.
The SPEAKER: Lingiari, sorry; I apologise.
Murray-Darling Basin
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (14:33): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that there are no documents which confirm that the government considered cutting funding to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:33): Once more: they would know full well that the $1.77 billion is legislated. It is in the legislation. So I imagine that they want to talk to the member for Watson, who wrote the plan. If you have got any problems, there is the gentleman to speak to; he is about four seats down from you. He would also inform you—maybe he would or would not know—that, if there were any changes to the $1.77 billion, it would be brought into here. It is part of the legislation. So, really, you should be addressing your question to the architect of the issue, who is the member for Watson—and there he is.
Foreign Policy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House on the importance of strengthening international relationships in support of our national interest? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would threaten our national interest?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:35): I thank the member for Hughes for his question and acknowledge his ongoing interest in foreign policy and defence matters. The Australian government is strengthening our bilateral relationships to boost our national security and deliver economic outcomes that benefit Australians—in other words, keeping Australians safe and providing job opportunities for Australians. Our free trade deals with China, Japan and South Korea have enabled Australians to export their goods and services to new and dynamic markets. We have enhanced our security ties and increased intelligence sharing in our region to keep Australians safe.
Relationships matter. And an important way to build these stronger relationships is in the exchange of young people. Under reciprocal arrangements with more than 30 other nations, tens of thousands of young Australians undertake working holidays in other countries each year, while we welcome tens of thousands of young people from Europe, North and South America and Asia on working holidays here. It is reciprocal.
The contrast with Labor is stark, and their hypocrisy is profound. The opposition leader attacks overseas workers, despite approving record numbers while he was the relevant minister. I have to say: the opposition leader's inflammatory words demonising foreigners who work in Australia risks damaging those reciprocal working-holiday arrangements which have built goodwill among nations and millions of young people from around the world, and it is in our interest to have these young workers here—particularly to fill some labour-force requirements in some sectors. But, oh! The opposition leader has form on the hypocrisy front. Remember when the opposition leader called for greater engagement in Asia, and then insulted Japan, a key strategic partner, by invoking past military aggression?
That was an attack that even Troy Bramston, a former Labor adviser, described as racist rhetoric.
Mr Champion interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is warned.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: And then remember when the opposition leader supported that disgraceful, xenophobic campaign by the CFMEU against the China free trade agreement, insulting China and opposing jobs for Australians just to curry favour with union thugs. This reckless opposition leader talks of the importance of the US alliance and then describes the incoming president as 'barking mad' just so he can curry favour with the Greens.
Mark Latham—remember him? The man Labor wanted as Prime Minister put it well when he said that the opposition leader was:
… an opportunist, someone with a shameless record of using people and political issues to satisfy his personal ambitions.
I could not put it any better.
Ms Plibersek: No, you couldn't, unless someone else—
The SPEAKER: Member for Sydney!
Attorney-General
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister was asked whether the Attorney-General had given the Solicitor-General a verbal instruction not to run a particular argument in the High Court—a question that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General repeatedly refused to answer. So I ask again: did the Attorney give this instruction—yes or no?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:38): I dealt with that matter yesterday by referring the honourable member to the Attorney's comprehensive statement delivered in the Senate.
Skilled Migration Program
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Can the minister update the House on the steps that the government is taking to ensure the effective management of the 457 visa program? And how does this compare to any other approaches?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:39): I thank the honourable member for his question. It is one of great achievements of this government that we have created half a million jobs since we have come into government. That is something that all Australians should be very proud of. We are working hard to get Australians into work and to get our economy pumping right across the nation.
The 457 visa program enables employers to employ a foreign worker if the position cannot be filled by an Australian worker.
Mr Champion: It's a guest worker program. So you favour guest workers, do you?
Mr DUTTON: There is quite a process that the employers need to go through before they can employ one of these workers.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
Mr DUTTON: We saw yesterday that that Daily Telegraph had a story in relation to the Leader of the Opposition. He claimed to be the great friend of the Australian worker and to put Australian workers first, but, as it turned out, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government as the employment minister, had signed off on special deal for McDonald's and KFC to employ foreign workers over Australian workers. So we have seen example after example over the course of the last 12 months or so of this Leader of the Opposition being completely untrustworthy. You cannot trust a word that this Leader of the Opposition says. He says one thing in here and something very different when he gets outside.
The difficulty for the Leader of the Opposition is that his hypocrisy does not just stop with the agreement for McDonald's. As the foreign minister pointed out before, the Leader of the Opposition was out there railing against the free trade agreement with the People's Republic of China when the reality was he was doing something very different when he was the employment minister. He was out there saying that he wanted to put Australians first. Yet, we have seen in the Daily Tele today that the then employment minister, the now Leader of the Opposition—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will not have a conversation.
Mr DUTTON: signed off on a deal to support 800 Chinese workers who were sponsored by a single Chinese-owned construction company to work at the Sino Iron Project in Western Australia. I want to ask you how that is consistent with some of the words of the Leader of the Opposition. If I just quote a couple—and there are plenty; we can come back to them another day. This is the Leader of the Opposition:
… if there's a project which is $150 million-plus in Western Australia, say a hotel or a construction development, I want to see Western Australian riggers and dogmen get jobs, I want to see Western Australian carpenters, labourers and mechanics and designers and drafts people get those jobs.
… … …
I am saying that I want Australians to get the first chance to work on our projects. When did it become so unacceptable to stand up for Australian jobs?—
he said, so sincerely at the time.
There are plenty of households in the Canning electorate where you have got trained construction workers, where you have got people with the sort of skills that can work on projects …
I tell you what, Mr Speaker: don't trust a word that Bill Shorten says. Don't trust a word that this Leader of the Opposition says. He is a con—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The minister will refer to members by their correct titles. I have warned him on this before. The member for Isaacs can just relax for a second. It will be okay. You are going to get the call. I have cautioned the minister on this before. There is a ruling that I refer members to. I will be taking further action for recidivists on the subject. We are not just going to keep asking the minister to withdraw. He will force me to take further action if it persists.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Ms Macklin: Withdraw! Withdraw!
Mr Shorten: Get him to withdraw that.
The SPEAKER: The minister will withdraw.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting —
The SPEAKER: No. The member for Gorton has already been warned. He is about to leave before—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I have not called the minister yet, I am sorry. The minister will withdraw.
Mr Dutton: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs. It might be good if he moves as quickly as he normally does!
Attorney-General
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth, waive legal privilege in relation to the government's communications with the Solicitor-General about the WA kickbacks scandal so the truth can be revealed?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is delaying the Prime Minister.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:43): The only kickbacks scandal that is being investigated today is the one relating to Cesar Melhem and the Fair Work Commission. That is what is being investigated today. It is that type of corruption that the opposition seeks to protect by its trenchant resistance to the reforms represented by the registered organisations bill, happily passed now by the parliament, and their continued opposition to the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They are the kickbacks fingered by the Heydon royal commission—exposed. And what has happened to those responsible for it?
They have been rewarded. Cesar Melham, the Leader of the Opposition's protege in the Australian Workers' Union, now sits in the Victorian parliament. And, of course, Kimberley Kitching, who was also recommended to be considered for prosecution by the Heydon royal commission, now sits in the Senate. So that is the pathway for those who break the law, those who defy the law, in the labour movement today. This is not the Labor Party of Bob Hawke. He stood up to crooked unions. The party that the Leader of the Opposition leads today defends them again and again.
Trade with China
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement is delivering new export opportunities for Australian businesses and creating jobs for hardworking Australians. Is the minister aware of any risk to these growing opportunities?
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (14:45): I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. I know he is passionate about the fact that on 20 December it will be the first anniversary of the coalition's historic China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. This is an agreement which has seen Australian exports grow significantly. The growth of the export of mangoes, for example, has increased 165 per cent. China is now our biggest export destination when it comes to Australian wine. What is this actually all about? It is providing Australian businesses with preferential market access into the world's second-largest economy and our largest trading partner. That is great news because it is about creating Australian jobs.
Let us not forget that it was, of course, the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU that we saw run a campaign against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. In fact, we saw the CFMEU run one of the most dishonest campaigns that we have seen in Australian public life. They pumped tens of millions of dollars into that dishonest campaign, in the same way that they pump tens of millions of dollars into the Australian Labor Party. This opposition that came from the CFMEU, and the walking on both sides of the street from the Leader of the Opposition, happened despite the fact that former Labor luminaries like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating called for the agreement to be passed. In fact, the former Labor Party President Warren Mundine said:
It's embarrassing watching Labor dance around why they oppose ChAFTA …
He also said:
Having lived under the shadow of racism my whole life, the bigoted anti-ChAFTA campaign makes me deeply angry.
That is the condemnation from the President of the Australian Labor Party.
But the fact is that it is not just our side of the House that is focused on trade deals. I can tell you all that the Leader of the Opposition does have some interest in trade. We are focused on trade that is good for Australian workers. The Leader of the Opposition is focused on trade that is good for him and good, in fact, for the trade union movement, at the expense of Australian workers, because this bloke has form. We know from, for example, Cleanevent, that he was happy to trade away the payments and the wages of Australian workers in order to boost the union movement.
As a further indication that the Leader of the Opposition is actually more focused on what he can do to boost the unions, he has also walked away from the heritage of the Australian Labor Party. In fact, this bloke is more Castro than he is Keating. That is a simple fact. A lot of them are looking confused because they are not sure whether that is a compliment or an insult. Let me assure you that it is not meant as a compliment. The simple fact is that the Australian Labor Party is a shadow of its former self. It will do a deal to benefit the unions over the top of Australian workers every day of every week. (Time expired)
Attorney-General
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:48): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer. The Bell Group case began in the High Court in November 2015. A barrister appeared for the Commonwealth in the High Court on 8 February in the Bell Group case. How is it possible that the Attorney-General was not aware of this litigation until March?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:49): The honourable gentleman is asking me to express an opinion on the state of mind of the Attorney-General, to hypothesise about the Attorney-General. I think the member for Isaacs's constant obsession with the Attorney-General is one that we have all indulged.
Mr Keogh interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Burt is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: We have put up with it. His colleagues find it humorous. I think all of us now find it tiresome. Let's just set a few obvious facts into context. The first thing is that the Bell Group litigation had been going on for 20 years. It had become a modern Jarndyce and Jarndyce, chewing up the assets of the estate of Bell Group, to the detriment, inevitably, of the creditors. That much, I think, is perfectly plain. The Western Australian government sought to find a solution to bring the litigation to an end. They introduced—
Mr Keogh interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Burt will leave under 94(a). You have been warned already.
The member for Burt then left the chamber.
Mr TURNBULL: They passed some legislation in the Western Australian parliament, which was challenged in the High Court. In the final event, as honourable members know, the Australian Taxation Office was represented. The Commonwealth was represented. The legislation was struck down on a basis that was—I suspect the honourable member and I might be able to find common ground on this at least—fairly predictable, and it came to an end. But the reality is that the interests of the Commonwealth were always protected. The interests of the ATO were always protected. But, it has to be said, this endless litigation is continuing and the only beneficiaries are the members of the legal profession.
Mr Taylor interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members for Hume and Shortland are warned.
Building and Construction Industry
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister explain to the House the importance of restoring the rule of law to construction sites, ensuring hardworking Australians are getting value for money on major infrastructure projects. Is the minister aware of how these benefits might be threatened?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (14:51): I thank the member for Fisher for his question. Of course, he brings enormous and relevant experience to this chamber as not only a former barrister but a former builder. He is absolutely right to ask about the rule of law on construction sites.
In 2016-17, the Commonwealth government will invest some $9 billion on transport infrastructure, and we are determined to get value for money on behalf of taxpayers. Unfortunately, the construction sector is marked by aggressive union activity. As Master Builders Queensland noted, a unionised worksite can add up to 30 per cent of the cost of construction and that is what comes from thuggery and criminality and corruption on building sites—tricks like sudden walk-offs in the middle of concrete pours that the CFMEU is so fond of. That is why it is so important to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the rule of law on building sites.
I am asked if there is any threat to this approach. It turns out that there are some in this place who take a different view to the coalition about the role of unions on major infrastructure programs, who are happy in fact for dodgy union officials to get whatever they can out of the companies building the projects. Let me quote from the trade union royal commission, which described the approach of one union on the EastLink tunnel project in Melbourne in 2005. There was an agreement to pay $100,000 a year to that union by Thiess John Holland, disguised by false invoices.
The genesis of the agreement was a proposal by Mr X—
I say 'Mr X', Mr Speaker, in deference to your rulings.
to Stephen Sasse in late 2004 that the joint-venture provide financial support to the AWU in relation to the dedication of an organiser of the project.
The report also said that a Mr Cesar Melhem, who we can think of as Mr X's little mate, assumed primary conduct of the negotiation, and the case study gives us an approach into the principles followed by Mr X, by Cesar Melhem and by all of the gang at the AWU, the CFMEU and all of those other unions. We might call it the 'render under Cesar what is Cesar's principle' because that is really the approach. When you look at the evidence given on oath, it seems that Mr X and Cesar and all the gang took a very expansive view of what was Cesar's: Cleanevent where Cesar, Mr X and the gang picked up $25,000 a year; ACI, three instalments of $160,000; Chiquita Mushrooms. And of course Cesar felt what should be rendered under Cesar was to be appointed as a Labor member of the Victorian upper house. Who was it who was named first on his nomination form? It was of course Mr X, our old friend, the Leader of the Opposition.
Attorney-General
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:55): My question is to the Prime Minister. At exactly this time last year, the Prime Minister stood at the dispatch box and expressed full confidence in ministers Briggs and Brough, and in the member for Fadden. One year on, in the last week of this parliament for this year, will the Prime Minister express the same full confidence in the Attorney-General?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:55): Of course I do.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House and the Treasurer. The member for Lingiari. The Leader of the House, I presume, more than most, wants the member for Groom to ask his question.
Veterans
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (14:55): My constituency question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Could the minister please advise that House how the government plans to harness the skills and increase employment of veterans in our communities.
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) (14:56): I would like to thank the member for Groom for this question and for his interest and advocacy for the defence community in his electorate. Groom is home to nearly 2,000 veterans and their families and it has a strong military presence at Oakey and at Cabarlah.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister launched the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Program. This was an initiative which the Prime Minister was happy to put his name to. As a matter of fact, he showed his keen interest in making sure that this initiative would be a success by first announcing it in the cabinet room, when he invited ex-defence service organisations into the cabinet room to explain to them what he would like to do. Two weeks ago, he invited leaders of industry and representatives of business both large and small to Kirribilli to launch this program. It is an incredibly important program. I recognise the opposition spokesperson for defence, Richard Marles, who came along and made this launch a bipartisan initiative.
The best thing that we can do for our veterans when they leave serving is to make sure that they can transition to a job and this is what this program is all about. Ensuring that the men and women who serve in our defence forces this can transition to a job is absolutely vital and it will require the support not only of government but also the support of industry and the community to make sure that we can get this right.
Our defence personnel, when they leave the military, as we have seen, can go on to be Governor-Generals. They can go on to serve in this place. They can go on to be captains of industry. They can go on to head small businesses, large businesses because they bring with them skills such as discipline, such as teamwork, such as hard work. All of those skills are absolutely vital for our businesses. Can I appeal to every member in this House that every time that you are meeting with business leaders, please encourage them to remember the skills that our Defence Force personnel can bring to their workplaces. Because, if they do that, they will be doing what the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions: the best way that we can pay homage to those who served in 1916, the best way we can commemorate their service is to ensure that we look after the defence personnel and the veterans in 2016.
Minister for Revenue and Financial Services
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, and it refers to the answer she gave yesterday in relation to her responsibilities for the ATO. Has the minister or her office received any written correspondence from the Attorney-General about the WA kickback scandal, and will the minister now undertake to the House to table all documents related to the scandal?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (15:00): I thank the member for her question and, as I said in the House yesterday, I am responsible for the ATO. I have absolutely sought advice from the ATO, in relation to the Bell litigation matter. They have given very clear advice that they needed to ensure that they intervened in the High Court proceedings, and I supported them fully in that action. When it comes to correspondence that I have received from other members of parliament, I am very happy to check my records and report back to the House.
Renewable Energy
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Despite Australia having an abundance of cheap, natural energy sources, especially in the regions—such as my electorate of Flynn—residents and businesses are struggling under the weight of ever-increasing power bills. Can the minister inform the House what action the federal government is taking to see that affordable and reliable electricity is available to everyone?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (15:01): I thank the member for Flynn for his question and acknowledge the fact that within his electorate there are many energy-intensive industries, like the Boyne aluminium smelter, which employs around 1,000 people near Gladstone. The fact is that on Curtis Island there have been three major LNG projects seeing tens of billions of dollars worth of investment and tens of thousands of jobs being created.
But businesses are doing it tough in Queensland, with rising electricity prices, and we heard just recently from the Australian Energy Regulator that more than 20,000 households have faced disconnections and are doing it tough as a result of rising energy prices. This is why the Turnbull government, working through the COAG Energy Council, is determined to put downward pressure on energy prices and is determined to ensure energy security is maintained as we transition to a lower emissions future. And we are doing that in a number of ways. We are doing that by seeking a review of the limited merits process, whereby the networks can appeal a decision of the Australian Energy Regulator. We are doing that by trying to get more liquidity and transparency into the domestic gas markets, and particularly the pipeline operators, as well as pushing the states to lift some of these moratoriums on the exploration and development of both conventional and nonconventional reserves. We have commissioned Australia's chief scientist, Alan Finkel, in order to undertake a review of energy security and we are pursuing a realistic renewable energy target of 23½ per cent by 2020.
But we are not getting any help from Labor state governments, particularly the one in Queensland. The one in Queensland has a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, even though today it only has about five per cent of its power coming from renewables. The Grattan Institute—no political truck with the Grattan Institute—has called this 'magic pudding economics'. It has described it as an economic illusion. Even the government owned power generator has raised its concerns, and a former Labor Queensland Treasurer of seven years standing, Keith De Lacy, has said that this will have a significant impact on living standards and economic growth. What about what the fixer said, Graham Richardson, who has described these policies as a farce, as stupid, as hurting economic growth.
So you do not have to take it from me, you can take it from some of the Labor statesmen who have criticised their own policies—and the fact that in Queensland it will cost an extra $27 billion will not help the Boyne aluminium smelter in the seat of Flynn, will not help the LNG facilities on Curtis Island. Only the coalition can be trusted. (Time expired)
Prime Minister
Dr CHALMERS ( Rankin ) ( 15:04 ): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answers and to a new report that he has divested his interest in a vulture fund which profited from foreclosing on the homes of Hurricane Katrina victims. Why has the Prime Minister now suddenly decided to avoid investing in funds that exploit vulnerable people, and will the Prime Minister finally sell his holdings in managed funds which invest in 7-Eleven, a company which is notorious for exploiting workers?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members on my right. The Minister for Urban Infrastructure will cease interjecting. The member for Bowman will cease interjecting.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:05): The honourable member would be well aware, no doubt, that I cannot speak for his own investments, but many of his colleagues are invested in AustralianSuper—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will not interject.
Mr TURNBULL: a company with which his leader was a director of.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. The member for Rankin has a nasty habit of interjecting as soon as he is asked a question. He has been warned. If he interjects again, he will be hearing the rest of the answer outside the chamber. Members on my right will cease interjecting as well.
Mr TURNBULL: I think I have explained to the House before, the approach that Lucy and I take to our investments. They are allocated by a financial adviser and, for the most part, they are concentrated in managed funds were we have no say in the underlying assets. That is for obvious reasons, so that it is accountable, it is transparent, but it also involves any personal involvement that can create conflicts of the kind that honourable members and the public would be concerned about.
As far as 7-Eleven is concerned, it is a part of the Japanese index, so any fund that has an investment in the Japanese index, as most big managed funds do, will therefore have a derived and very small investment. The honourable member asked the question. Many honourable members opposite have superannuation in AustralianSuper. Unless there has been a very recent change, they will find AustralianSuper has an investment in 7-Eleven's holding company. I would also note that perhaps many honourable members opposite would be very familiar with, if not invested in, Cbus, which is the Construction and Building Unions Superannuation fund. It is backed by the CFMEU. Indeed, Cesar Melhem was a director of it until 2013. According to Cbus's total private equity holdings as at 30 June last year, Cbus held investments in a number of distressed opportunities funds, Siguler Guff Distressed Opportunities Fund III and II. Those funds are obviously ones which invest in distressed assets.
The reality is that all of these big managed funds have a variety of assets and the important thing is they are accountable—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will leave under 94(a). He cannot help himself.
The member for Rankin then left the chamber .
Mr TURNBULL: and they are transparent, and I think honourable members should examine carefully the nature of their own invests in the funds they invest in before they engage on this sort of program of smearing.
Infrastructure
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. My electorate of Wright has many vegetable growers who supply an immense amount of product both domestically and abroad. We have Moffatt farms at Aratula and Kalfresh at Kalbar, which have a long history of exporting carrots and green beans to customers in New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Middle East. We also have Gibb Bros, who export to Asia, the South Pacific and New Zealand. How will our government support businesses such as these to get their products to market quickly and more efficiently?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:09): I would like to thank the member for Wright for his question. He has been a very strong advocate in addressing future freight tasks in his electorate to take advantage of free trade agreements and also to meet our growing infrastructure needs. The member for Wright was born and raised in Queensland. He has a farming background. He worked in the agrifinance sector. But perhaps he knows the challenges and the opportunities faced by regional communities more through his own investment in a general freight business, and the fact that he has actually employed people in those businesses—employed up to 100 people. So he is well aware of the challenges facing the freight sector not just for his community but right throughout Queensland and regional Australia.
The Turnbull Joyce government is getting on with the job of delivering a $50 billion infrastructure investment program not just in our cities or through major projects through the Minister for Urban Infrastructure but also through projects on our regional highways and in our smaller country towns throughout rural and regional parts of Australia. Part of the challenge is dealing with the fact that Australia's freight task has quadrupled over the past four decades. In fact, between now and 2030, we expect to see a further growth in demand for freight in the order of 50 per cent. This increasing freight task demands more from the Australian infrastructure network and all levels of government will be required to respond to it.
That is why last week the Prime Minister, in response to Infrastructure Australia's Australian Infrastructure Plan, announced that we will be undertaking a freight and supply chain strategy. We need to provide the right investment for the private sector to invest with confidence, but we need to also make sure that we capitalise on those free trade agreements that the coalition government has been so successful in delivering for the Australian nation. So it was a key recommendation of Infrastructure Australia's report last week and we are getting on with the job of doing that work over the next 12 months.
The freight study is important because we need to make sure that we get the foundations right and that we deliver value for money for Australian taxpayers in every investment we make in the infrastructure space. The member for Wright also is a huge advocate and a strong supporter of the Melbourne Brisbane inland rail project; just like the members for Groom, the member for Maranoa, the member for Parkes—very keen supporters of the inland rail project.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I hear the member for Grayndler interjecting. We are getting on with it. There is $894 million being committed by the Turnbull Joyce government to the Melbourne Brisbane inland rail project. We are getting on with it because we believe in the future of regional Australia and we understand the importance of helping the Australian agricultural sector get its products to market. So we are getting on with the job. There are other major freight projects the government are investing in. We are investing in the Townsville eastern access rail corridor and the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. There is $220 million for the Murray Basin Rail Project and $1.1 billion for the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing—important freight projects. On this side of the House, we understand the importance of planning, getting the job done right, getting value for money for the Australian taxpayers. Our national freight and supply chain strategy will be an important piece of work to guide those future investment decisions.
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Answers to Questions without Notice
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:12): My question refers to page 567 of House of Representatives Practice and goes to when questions are taken on notice. We have a formalised procedure under standing orders when questions are put on the Notice Paper. When questions are taken on notice by ministers during question time, as they were by the Prime Minister yesterday, 567 of Practice allows two alternative procedures, either that the member is directly written to or that the relevant minister provides the information here on the floor of the House. I ask that we find a way of clarifying which procedure is to be followed within the House. In terms of the administration of the House, there are documents with respect to a slideshow and a summary briefing that the Prime Minister undertook to provide the information back to me yesterday. It has not happened. I am just asking what sort of procedure we should follow.
The SPEAKER (15:13): I am happy to rule on this now. I am very familiar with the issue that the Manager of Opposition Business is raising. As you will find through the history of these things, really, it is a matter for the minister as to the timing of any response and the nature of it. Of course, the other obvious point is if a member who is asked a question is not happy with the timing or, indeed, the nature when a response occurs, there is always the opportunity to ask another question.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:14): Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate on 6 September 1984 and the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984, I present reports on access to committee documents.
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:14): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MOTIONS
Death of Mrs Jo Cox
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:15): by leave—I move:
That this House:
(1) condemn the murder of Mrs Jo Cox, Member of Parliament in the House of Commons for the constituency of Batley and Spen, killed in the course of performing her responsibilities to her constituents;
(2) express its deepest sympathies to Mrs Cox’s family, colleagues, and to all who knew her;
(3) pay tribute to Mrs Cox’s extraordinary contribution to public life; and
(4) convey the terms of this resolution to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:15): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day for the resumption of debate on the motion relating to the murder of Mrs Jo Cox be referred to the Federation Chamber for further debate.
Members would be well aware of the tragic and awful death of Mrs Jo Cox, a member of the House of Commons in Great Britain. A motion was moved by a member of the House in Private Members' Business, but the Manager of Opposition Business and I wanted to be able to relate to the House of Commons that we had passed a motion through the parliament unanimously noting this terrible tragedy and enclosing the speeches given on the motion.
Because of the procedures of the House, it was not possible to have a vote on the Private Members' Business motion easily, so I undertook, with the Manager of Opposition Business, to move the motion as the Leader of the House, which means that the processes are much simpler. As a consequence, this motion will now be referred to the Federation Chamber and as many members as wish to will be able to speak on the motion. We will then be able to pass it through the House on the voices and that will allow it to be translated to the House of Commons to indicate our deep regret and sadness at the hideous death of Mrs Jo Cox, a death that could occur at any moment to any person who represents their constituency in public life as a random act, as it was in this case. I am very glad to have been able to cooperate with the Manager of Business in the House to bring this about.
The SPEAKER: On behalf of the House, I thank the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business for facilitating this as a sensible course of action to allow as many members as possible to participate.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Youth Unemployment
The SPEAKER (15:17): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Chifley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to provide employment opportunities for young Australians.
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 HUSIC (Chifley) (15:17): If anyone should apologise to young Australians for the position they have been put in, it is that side of the House. That side of the House owes a massive apology to young Australians who have been denied the opportunity to get work in this country right now.
Let's have a look at what the government has done in terms of youth unemployment. There were a lot of lofty promises and a lot of indications that youth unemployment would be recognised as an issue and that those opposite would deal with it. We had, for example, the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, saying:
Youth unemployment, both globally and in Australia, is unacceptably high. We know that early intervention is fundamental, particularly for those who need additional support …
And in the budget speech this year, the Treasurer said:
It is worth trying new ways to get young people into real jobs.
The government has said all along that it recognises that it is a problem and that it was going to fix it. But what is the reality? The reality is that youth unemployment is almost double the national average. Youth unemployment is somewhere near 12 and 13 per cent, because of this government's inability to create real jobs.
There are a number of people in this place who represent the regions who would be able to tell you that that figure is even worse in their area. It is even worse in the regions. In the Illawarra, for instance, youth unemployment is close to 17 per cent. This is a scandal—17 per cent in the Illawarra. In Moreton Bay, north of Queensland, it is over 16 per cent. In the Barossa, in Adelaide, it is nearly 14 per cent. South-west of Perth, in Fremantle and Rockingham, it is 14 per cent.
The youth labour market participation rate is at 65 per cent—a massive drop of over five per cent since last December. This is huge. According to the government itself—this is the government saying to Senate estimates what the reality is about youth unemployment—there are nearly 300,000 unemployed young people between the ages of 15 and 24 in this country right now. On top of this, the department acknowledged that there are another 170,000 who have been unemployed for more than a year and who are so disillusioned by that fact that they do not even bother to look for jobs—jobs that are simply not there.
Ms Chesters: They give up.
Mr HUSIC: They just give up, as the shadow assistant minister says. So there are 170,000 on top of the 300,000, all admitted to by the department—all admitted to and acknowledged by that government over there.
And then we look at entry level jobs. A recent report from Anglicare shows that there are very few entry level jobs advertisements compared to the number of people actually looking for work—that is, the kind of work that young Australians would be targeting to get their start. That report shows that there is only one job advertised for every six low-skilled jobseekers in Australia—only one. That is the bleak picture that young Australians face under this government. Thirty-eight thousand competed for 22,000 entry level jobs advertised across Australia in May alone. In South Australia and Tasmania, that situation is even worse. In South Australia there are nine jobseekers for every job vacancy and in Tasmania there are over 10 jobseekers for every job vacancy.
If we look at the overall picture in terms of jobs in this country, the figures for this year show that, in the 10 months to October, 90,000 full-time jobs were lost as a result of the failures of those opposite. The bulk of the jobs created in this country this year, as acknowledged by the Reserve Bank, are part-time. Who has part-time bills? No-one has part-time bills. No-one has a part-time mortgage. There is massive underemployment in this country. We have record underemployment, record low wages growth and we can see what is happening in terms of jobs. Those opposite say that they are here to help, but this is how they have helped young people. Remember when they brought in the idea that they would stop young people from getting Newstart for six months?
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: Then their answer was, shadow Treasurer, that they would bring it down to five weeks—because you do not have to eat for five weeks. That is the ridiculous situation that we have. What else happened? They cut $1 billion out of support for apprentices; apprentice numbers plummeted by roughly 130,000. We urged the government, for instance, to fix VET FEE-HELP so that young people could get access to vocational education and not be ripped off for it. They dragged the chain on that and did not help at all. Then, for young people who want to get a job, skill themselves up or go to university, what do they do next? They tried to bring in uni deregulation to price young people out of university. In their heart of hearts, they still believe that there should be $100,000 uni degrees—that is it. In their heart of hearts, that is their answer.
Further, the government savagely cut programs that would have made a difference for young people to get into work, programs like Youth Connections. Youth Connections was a tragic victim of their first budget, in 2014. Only when the damage was done did they slink back in here and re-fund it, but they did not call it Youth Connections; their big move was to call it Youth Connect. That was their big move.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Very innovative.
Mr HUSIC: Absolutely—very agile, Member for Hunter. The government's other signature program, Work for the Dole, is failing badly. This program is absolutely tanking. Three months after being in that program, only 11 per cent of the people who go through the program get a job. That means nearly 90 per cent of the people who go through Work for the Dole do not get a job three months after they have done it. What is the point of the program? Let's go to the Secretary of the Department of Employment. When asked, 'What do you think about Work for the Dole?' she said:
The purpose of Work for the Dole is not necessarily to lead directly to a full-time job.
That is the Secretary of the Department of Employment saying Work for the Dole is not about getting a job. This is why youth unemployment is a problem. Right throughout the government, they have no answer as to where they will actually deliver on youth unemployment.
Talking about Work for the Dole, we learnt of the terrible, tragic fatality of a young person on a Work for the Dole site earlier this year. The government have undertaken an internal review and they still have not released the findings of that review. When are they going to step forward and say what changes have been made to give assurances to the rest of the country that anywhere this program is operating people will be safe? We have had no answer, but what we do know is that they are getting ready to move to a new program, called PaTH, which is designed to be an interns program, where they are basically going to pump 120,000 interns into the job market. And do not think they will be interns in the normal sense of the word; these will be intern waiters, intern baristas and intern construction workers.
Mr Fitzgibbon: They will just keep churning them over.
Mr HUSIC: They will just churn them over. The interns will be paid less than the national minimum wage. They will get equivalent to $14 an hour, where the national minimum wage is $17. You will have subsidised interns going into a labour market where there is record underemployment and record low wages, and there will be no protection for those interns. That is why there was a Senate report this week that condemned the government for it. We have no assurances, for example, that those young people will get adequate workers compensation coverage or any other protections on the way through. This is where we are at. The government are failing on everything they touch. They have no idea.
It has been a long year for those opposite. This has effectively been a wasted year. You can tell it has been a long year because, as the year goes on, they shrink further in their seats. There is only one person on that side of this place who is smiling. It is not that person; it is not that person; it is not the member for Bowman; it is not the member for Berowra; is the member for Warringah. He is the only one who smiles these days. Why wouldn't he? He does not have to be Prime Minister anymore. I know those opposite love outsourcing; I never thought they outsourced amongst themselves. Basically, the member for Warringah has outsourced his entire policy framework to the Prime Minister. I never thought I would say this about the Prime Minister, but he has actually become a poor man's version of Tony Abbott. There he is, doing everything that Tony Abbott would. He has not got a clue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will refer to members by their titles, thank you.
Mr HUSIC: I absolutely will. The problem is that the Prime Minister has spent all this time chasing a version of the member for Warringah by trying to bring the ABCC in but not looking at the things that matter to people. Families want to see their young get a job, get trained and find a way to get ahead. All that has been neglected in pursuit of an ideological obsession by those opposite. Young people are paying a price, and that is why I am saying: those opposite owe an apology to young Australians for failing them in their efforts to find work. The government simply have no answers and we will hear none from that side today. (Time expired)
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (15:27): I welcome the opportunity to speak on what is a very important matter of public importance—very important indeed. The issue of youth unemployment is an endemic problem that this government is absolutely committed to addressing. The PaTH program, I believe, is a revolutionary program that is addressing the root causes of youth unemployment. When I used to get around to businesses and talk to employers, they would say to me that young people are presenting at the gates of their businesses without the necessary skills to hold down a job—skills that those of us who have been fortunate enough to have a job for many years take for granted, such as how to behave in the workplace, turning up on time and how you dress for work.
Ms Collins: Why not give them skills and a job?
Mr HARTSUYKER: I know the member for Franklin is not serious about unemployment. She is not serious about addressing the problem; she can only squawk and whinge and moan. The PaTH program addresses the key factors that are creating the challenges and keeping young people out of the workforce—those basic skills. Under the PaTH program, young people will have intensive training in what employers are expecting, like knowing to turn up on time, knowing how to dress in the workplace and knowing how to get on with your workmates—those very basic issues and very basic skills that are keeping them out of the workplace.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay and the member for Lyons are out of their places. One more peep and they will be evicted.
Mr HARTSUYKER: This is an important issue, and it is too important for catcalling from those members opposite—too important for that. The issue of internships is really important because so many young people are lacking the self-confidence to go out and get a job. They are lacking the self-confidence to go into the workforce.
Here you are dancing to the tune of your union masters—
Ms Collins: Why not pay them a proper wage?
Mr HARTSUYKER: I am coming to that. If you would be quiet for two minutes you might learn something, member for Franklin. Why we have an internship program is that it offers young people the opportunity to get into the workforce while still retaining a strong link with the social security system so that they can remain on benefits and, at the same time, get work experience and earn additional income to compensate them for the effort that they are putting in, the effort that they are making in investing in their own future.
Many young people are scared about the prospect of going into the workplace. The internship program keeps that link with the social security system, helping to increase their confidence. The system also provides an incentive for employers to take on a young person. Many employers have had unhappy experiences taking on young people in their businesses, but the internship program allows them the opportunity to put on a young person for four to 12 weeks and see how they go, to offer them the opportunity to learn some new skills, to allow that employer to see how that young person is performing on the job and to see how that young person can contribute to their business.
The next concern that is often put forward by employers is the issue of the high cost of putting on a young person when they are not productive. Under the PaTH program there are wage subsidies of up to $10,000 to overcome those costs when a young person comes into a business and is not as productive as they might be after having a long period of experience in that job. The PaTH program is multifaceted. Firstly, it addresses the issue of employability skills, which are keeping so many young people out of the workforce. Secondly, it addresses the issue of offering an internship, which allows them to make a move into work but still retain that link with the welfare system, boosting their confidence and giving an employer the confidence to take on a young person. Thirdly, it addresses the issue of wage subsidies, which could make a difference between a young person getting a job and not getting a job. It is a great program. It is a massive commitment by this government in the employment of young people. It is offering around 120,000 places—
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr HARTSUYKER: What is so upsetting about offering 120,000 young people an opportunity, member for Chifley? What are you so scared of? Are you scared that your union donors are going to get all upset, that they will be pulling the strings and there you will be, dancing to their tune, as you always are? We know you are dancing to the tune of your union mates. What do they say at the CFMEU you need to do? Their wish is your command—isn't it, member for Chifley?
Ms Husar: Do you know why unions are there? You're an idiot!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay will withdraw that comment.
Ms Husar: I withdraw.
Mr HARTSUYKER: This PaTH program shows our commitment to young people—$750 million says that we are serious about addressing the issue of youth unemployment. We are serious about addressing that issue. We are serious about addressing the barriers that you could not care less about. You are too busy taking your instructions from your union mates to look at what works, to look at what employers are saying, to look at what people in the industry who need to get people into work are saying—
Ms Collins: Worse under you. Worse under you.
Mr HARTSUYKER: You will have your chance in a minute, member for Franklin, I am sure. You are not interested in what—
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr HARTSUYKER: Youth Connections was a failure. I heard the member for Chifley extolling the virtues of Youth Connections. It was an unmitigated failure.
The very subject of this MPI shows that they do not understand how jobs are created in this economy because it is not government that creates jobs, it is the private sector that creates jobs. That is why we on this side of the House are getting the budget back in the black—despite members opposing us at every turn in our efforts to get the budget back in the black. That is why we are investing $50 billion in infrastructure, creating thousands of jobs in the construction phase and creating thousands more as a result of the efficiencies—
Ms Collins: He's misleading the House.
The SPEAKER: The member for Franklin might want to restrain her comments. It has been constant for seven minutes.
Mr HARTSUYKER: and many of those jobs, potentially, are going to young people. That is why we are reducing red tape—to free up businesses to do what they do best, to get on and deliver services to their customers and, in doing so, employ more young Australians. That is why we are entering into a free trade agreement—to provide export opportunities to create more jobs. We are absolutely committed to the free trade agreement, and that is why we are cracking down on the lawlessness in the building industry. Why should our construction costs be 30 per cent higher than they need to be? It is because the members opposite have their strings tugged by the good old members of the CFMEU and all their other union backers.
We are serious about ensuring that we have an efficient, effective construction sector that can offer more apprenticeships, that can offer more traineeships and that can offer more opportunities for young people. Those opposite are about marching to the tune of their union mates. This government, since we have been elected, has created some 467,000 jobs and at a rate faster than those on the other side of the House when they were last in government. But youth unemployment is a vitally important issue that we are absolutely addressing, and the PaTH program is a unique program showing the quantum of this government's commitment—$750 million—showing the expansiveness of this program—some 120,000 participants.
This can make a real difference to the level of youth unemployment in this country by giving young people the skills that will make them employable, by taking away the risk to employers, by allowing them to put on a young person through an internship system, by providing financial support to employers to participate, helping offset the cost of the supervision that a young person will need when they are first in the workplace and that all-important wage subsidy to bridge the productivity gap when the young person goes into the workforce. It is an excellent program.
But what do we hear from the members opposite? Negative carping and just being the mouthpiece for their union mates, rather than coming on board. I think this program is a game changer. I think this is going to mean many more young people in work, many more young people moving on to bigger and better things in their career. What we want to see is young people getting that first step into the labour market. We want to see them have the opportunity to get that very first job and keep that job, so that they can enjoy the benefits that work can bring.
It is not just about the money. It is about the self-esteem that comes from having a job. It is not just about the money. It is about being able to hold your head up high and say: 'I have a job. I am contributing to the economy. I can make my own financial decisions. I need not be dependent on the welfare system.' The welfare system should be a safety net not a destination for our young people. We are absolutely committed to addressing the issue of youth unemployment, and the PaTH program is a very dynamic and very effective program that is going to assist a lot of young people.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (15:38): Across this country in communities like mine, and in communities like the member for Cowper's local area, youth unemployment is an extremely significant and important issue to families, to communities and, I would hope, to members of this place. If the member for Cowper thinks that banging the drum again, carrying on about trade unions and criticising the opposition are going to cut it with people who are seriously concerned about youth unemployment, he is very, very wrong.
I found it quite disappointing to see a cheap shot at trade unions taken in a speech on an MPI about youth unemployment. If the evidence does tell us anything in this place, it is that the trade union movement, as too many families who have young people who have been injured at or died on a workplace know, has been at the forefront of protecting young people from being exploited and ensuring that they work under fair conditions and return home safely at the end of the day.
I am not going to stand here and have members opposite stand here in a debate on youth unemployment and use the trade union movement as some sort of battering ram just because their talking points say to bang on, bang on, bang on attacking the union movement. I know, as should every member in this place, that one of the most vulnerable categories of workers in the workplace are young people, who are often desperate to get a start, often really concerned to retain a job. They need and deserve the backup of the trade union movement, which has delivered in spades.
Students are finishing school as we speak. They are doing their end-of-year events, getting dressed up, hiring outfits, celebrating the end of their school years. But the reality for this cohort of young people is that they will face a much tougher job environment than any of us in this place have ever faced. It is getting tougher and tougher for young people to get a break into the workforce. There are two things that a government can do to really help with that. One of them is to ensure that they leave school with the best possible schooling they could have achieved in order to make them as well prepared as possible for the postschool world.
One of the most important things that we could be doing to make sure that happens is supporting the Gonski school funding reforms. Those reforms were about ensuring every kid in every school, regardless of sector or state, reached a funding standard that guaranteed them a quality of education, so that they were well prepared when they went out into their postschool world. We have seen the government fail dismally on that, run and hide and make excuses. The reality is that they have made significant funding cuts across that sector.
The second thing you can do as a government is then make sure that the postschool sector is well resourced and well organised to support them in getting the skills they need for the workplace. As the member for Chifley outlined, the government's record is just as appalling there. It infuriates me that the opportunities for skilled occupations which create good jobs and great careers have been decimated by this government time and time again. Do not talk to me about pathways and internships. You are a government that could not even go to the last election with a single policy on vocational education and training or apprenticeships—not a single policy.
As we saw, 130,000 apprentices disappeared out of the system. Many of those were in regions like mine, in regions of other members here and in the member for Cowper's area—regions where there was a real pathway to a long-term, good career. They were decimated because you cut a billion dollars out of the system. You have let TAFE be destroyed. You have no policy on TAFE. You have nothing to say about TAFE, yet it is such a significant pathway for young people to get skills and training. Indeed, in my own state of New South Wales, we found out today that the state Liberal government, under a National Party minister, had cut over $200 million out of TAFE there as well.
These are the things you could be doing, but you are not. You want to bang on about unions and attack us, but you are doing absolutely nothing to deliver real opportunities to young people.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:43): It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair, Deputy Speaker Coulton. I always enjoy an MPI. It is an interesting process. Certainly, like everyone, I use the normal sort of process. You have a look and you listen to those opposite. You take a few notes for a couple of minutes, you counter that and then you deliver your own message. So I listened very closely to the member for Chifley for 10 minutes. What did I hear? I heard a litany of complaints. I did not hear a single idea—not one. I thought, 'This is actually a serious issue.' I know it is in your electorate; it certainly is in mine. I thought that perhaps I could come and hear something important from the member for Chifley, but, no; all we got was a litany of complaints.
Mr Tudge: Don't have such high expectations.
Mr PITT: No, I will not have high expectations. I certainly will not have them again. The member for Cunningham came in to talk about worker exploitation. But, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the people on this side actually did something about worker exploitation. I know because I was one of them. We delivered Taskforce Cadena. We delivered the Migrant Workers Taskforce. We delivered the extra $20 million to Fair Work to help them crack down on the people that are doing the wrong thing. Now, I did not see any sign of the unions, not one. What we saw from those opposite, when they were in government for many years, were more reports—more reports, more reports, more reports. We have taken real action.
Once again, when we look at the frontbench of those opposite, what we see is the 'Ministry for Complaints'. I cannot let an opportunity go by. I was in here with the shadow minister for agriculture earlier when he was talking about the backpacker tax. I said to the shadow minister: 'You've really taken an opportunity now. This is about your time in the sun. It's not about an outcome for the people we are here to represent; it's about you.' Where has he been? He has been hiding away in the far corner, with nothing to say, for a long period of time. In fact, he dragged out a list of rural members. He was a few short. He got to 20. It was not quite enough. I did suggest to the shadow minister for agriculture that I would send him a map so he could perhaps use that to help him find his way in rural Australia to actually talk about what agreed positions mean, the NFF—all those types of things. We took months of consideration, months to talk to those stakeholders, and what happens? They blow it up. What do they come up with? 10½ per cent. That did not come from anything real. You just made it up.
Mr Husic: Youth jobs.
Mr PITT: This is about jobs. They took advice from Senator Lambie. Can you believe it? We had the member for Rankin here, that absolute bastion of economic advice, who gave us so many outcomes for this nation! Absolutely terrible. But, when we get around to it, we need to deliver better and stronger economies. How do we do that? We do that with trade. On this side of the House, we focus on things that deliver long-term employment opportunities. We have signed free trade agreements with Japan, South Korea and China. In fact, agriculture, at some $46 billion worth of exports, is now second only to iron ore. That delivers jobs, because, in the regions, they are the things that are important. Whether it is the construction industry, the agricultural industry, the education sector or services, it is about the more that we can deliver in trade, because trade equals jobs and more trade equals more jobs. They are the things that we intend to be focused on and we will continue to deliver. When you come from a regional area, as many of those on this side and the other side do—as I know you know, Deputy Speaker Coulton—it is a very important issue for youth.
When we talk about the Youth Employment Package, I think it is important that those opposite support it, but in fact they do not. I have been advised that they will not be supporting the youth jobs package of $840 million over four years. As someone who was an employer, who came through the system, was an apprentice, worked his way through to become a tradesperson, put himself through university, bought farms, owned small businesses and actually employed people, I know people need to have those basic skills. Every employer I talk to tells me that they will give our youth an opportunity, but they need to have the basic skills. They need to show up on time. They need to be prepared for work. They need to want to be there. They need to be willing to put their phone down for a few hours. This program will provide those opportunities: six weeks of training to get them job ready, to prepare; work experience, with 30,000 internships for up to 25 hours per week; $200 extra for jobseekers; $1,000 up-front for business, for the risks that they take, for the things that they have to do. It is not free to employ people; you have to put importance and value into what they do. There is also the youth bonus wage subsidy: $6½ thousand if I hire an eligible job-ready jobseeker. Deputy Speaker Coulton, I know you come from an area where this is an issue.
We are doing real things as a government. As a coalition government, we are delivering for our people, we are delivering for the regions and we are certainly delivering for those who are seeking a job. The Youth Employment Package is certainly a great component of that.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (15:48): Many of the people who voted for me in the last election were patients I had seen as children. The fact that they gave me their vote was personally very gratifying, but to me it was a sign that I must do the best I can for them. I know what will make their lives and the lives of their families better, possibly for generations: good health care, good housing and, most of all, work—especially work.
There are over 36,000 people aged 15 to 29 in my electorate. Our economy is changing. TAFE has been decimated. Many adolescents and young adults are struggling to get adequate jobs, training and long-term work. Traditional manufacturing industry is going, never to come back; farming, once a powerful force in my electorate of Macarthur, is less and less significant; and apprenticeships are few and far between. Many young people leave school aware that they will struggle to find meaningful work or post-school education. I know, as a father of six, how stressful it is for the entire family to have to find training and work after school for adolescents. I believe that my generation did not have the pressure that this current generation faces to find work. I know that many are disappointed and may face years of looking for jobs with only a poorly-paid part-time job as their reward. I know the stress that that will cause to families and children, and the poor self-esteem that long periods searching for jobs and the demeaning social security atmosphere promoted by this government will cause.
When I was an adolescent we lived not far from the Postmaster-General's training college, where many thousands were trained as telephone technicians. About three kilometres away—or two miles in the old money—were the Chullora Railway Workshops, where many thousands were trained as metalworkers, boilermakers, electricians, carpenters and toolmakers. I know those days have gone, but I recognise how important those jobs were to my schoolmates and to local families. I know how important meaningful employment is to young people. I have seen the despair that comes from months, even years, of looking for work. I know we can do better to foster employment.
Instead of encouraging young people to train, this government has cut assistance to apprentices by nearly a billion dollars. We have seen apprentice numbers plummet by nearly 130,000. In New South Wales, we have seen TAFE funding cut dramatically even in the last few weeks—job losses, course cuts and a dramatic increase in fees. For many young Australians, particularly in my electorate, TAFE is no longer affordable. We are told we are facing a housing construction boom—much of it is going to be in in my electorate of Macarthur. However, we are not training nearly enough electricians, carpenters, plumbers and builders. Will we have to import them from overseas? The government tells young people, time and again, to get a job, but it has done very little to develop those jobs and provide meaningful and affordable training.
Youth unemployment has been an issue in Australia for some time. The rate of youth unemployment is between three and 3½ times the general rate. However, it is important to realise that the problems go far deeper and are now far more complex than a simple statistic tells us. Reasons to note for that are that young, unskilled jobseekers are very vulnerable to any economic downturn; that they are very vulnerable to exploitation, particularly as a consequence of low levels of unionisation—again, fostered by this government; one problem we never hear them talk about is youth exploitation—and that underemployment and the lengthy spells of unemployment are worsening, almost of a daily basis, and have been in the last three years. We must do better for our youth.
A tick up in economic activity—the sort of selective economic stimulus hinted at by the Reserve Bank in recent months—would make a huge difference. It would make the problem of youth unemployment simpler and easier for governments to address. It would make a huge difference to the unemployed and to the next batch of graduates and school leavers who are standing on the cusp of the job market for the first time. Many of them have a future that is very problematic, and when that future— (Time expired)
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:53): I concur with some of the sentiments of the member for Macarthur. He is right: youth unemployment is a problem. But where he is wrong is in what we need to do about it. The wording of this MPI gives away Labor's failure. The wording is: 'The Government's failure to provide employment …'. We are not Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela. The government does not create jobs. I know that may be something that is a bit of a newsflash for those on the other side of the House. All that we can do on this side is set up an environment which encourages business and entrepreneurs to take risks to employ someone. The idea of just borrowing and spending and creating more public servants is not the way to create jobs. That is the way to destroy jobs.
Let's have a look at the ABS records to test this theory. The last year that Labor was in government was 2013.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I hear the member for Shortland over there, so let's have a look at the year 2013. There was no GFC, member for Shortland—nothing. You had all the Labor stimulus. That should have been a great year for creating jobs. What do the ABS numbers say? At the start of 2013 there were 11,439,000 jobs. At the end of the year, after all Labor's great policies of job creation, there were actually 15,000 jobs fewer. The policies of Labor did not create a single job in that year; they destroyed 15,000. Now, compare that to the last full calendar year, 2015. In that calendar year, 285,000 new jobs were created. That is 285,000 new jobs against 15,000 fewer jobs in 2013.
The simple reason is that those opposite do not understand what it takes to create a job. It takes an entrepreneur or employer prepared to take a risk to employ someone. All those opposite have done all the time is make it harder and put more red tape and more burdens on the people who do the employing in this country. To have this MPI today shows their complete hypocrisy. This is a day when the Labor Party want to lower the rate of tax on foreign backpackers to 10 per cent, yet they complain if we want to reduce the tax on small business from 30 per cent to 27½ per cent. So there is a big problem: we cannot reduce the tax rates for small businesses in this country with turnovers of more than $2 million by two per cent, from 30 per cent down to 27½ per cent, yet they want foreign backpackers to be taxed less. And they complain about youth unemployment!
Then there is the hypocrisy of their crying crocodile tears on the 457 visas. We saw the numbers yesterday. When Labor were in power, they were giving out 457 visas to Hungry Jack's, KFC and McDonald's. The heads have gone down; they are very quiet over there now. They gave out 74 457 visas for workers at Hungry Jack's, 88 at KFC and 285 at McDonald's. You come into this chamber and you complain there are no jobs for young Australians, and we find out you have given 285 457 visas for foreign workers to work at Donald's.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: It should not get any worse. Then, above all else, their plan is used to slug this economy with a 50 per cent renewable energy target. They are quiet again, because we know what the cost of that is. We saw the numbers from Bloomberg finance. They were a $2,000 cost for every man, woman and child in the country. I know the member for Macarthur has great sympathy for the people in his electorate. I ask you, sir: how are the people in your electorate each going to find $2,000 to pay higher electricity bills; how much will that cut in their expenditure with local retailers reduce employment; how will employers that have that cost burden put on them find more jobs?
The coalition is getting on with the job. Our Youth Jobs PaTH program is helping with youth unemployment. The alternative, the Labor Party, is just an absolutely clueless rabble and no idea whatsoever. (Time expired)
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (15:58): As I listened to most of this debate from my office, all I heard from the other side of the chamber was some criticism of the former Labor government. But as I listened to the speeches from those opposite I did not hear any mention of any concrete policies to create any actual jobs. Their only job creation strategy seems to be to transplant several hundred jobs from here in Canberra to the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate up in Armidale. That is not job creation; that is just job transference.
I want to paint you a picture of the south-eastern suburbs of Perth that make up my electorate of Burt—suburbs from Canning Vale, through to Gosnells, down to Armadale, out to Piara Waters and Harrisdale and everywhere in between. My electorate is the home of many mineworkers and construction workers and those working in mining related services. Unfortunately, many of them have been made redundant over the last year or so. Under Labor we had unemployment at under six per cent. Now in my area it is over seven per cent. That is higher than the WA average. It is higher than the national average. And the picture is even worse when it comes to youth unemployment. It is more than double. It is over 15 per cent.
Thousands of young Western Australians are graduating from high school, TAFE and university with nowhere to go. The days when every young person could walk into a job on the mines are a distant memory for young people today in Western Australia.
For all of its innovation and agility, the Liberal government has not assisted WA to diversify its economy or broaden employment opportunities away from mining. Neither, of course, has the Barnett Liberal state government. As was remarked to me by Liberals during the election, 'You can't go and tell a guy who's been laid off from a mine site to go and put on some skinny-leg jeans and develop an iPhone app.' The only attempt at a solution that the government is offering is the PaTH internship program. Well, that is tantamount to working for nix. Otherwise, the Turnbull government's attempts to help young Australians looking for work has seen them trying to deny access to Newstart payments, cutting assistance to apprenticeships by about a billion dollars, cutting apprenticeship numbers to less than 130,000. We have also seen them fail to step in swiftly to stop the VET-FEE rorting where students were being charged astronomical amounts for an education that they never actually received. And of course there is always the continued pushing of $100,000 university degrees, as well as further savage cuts to programs like youth connections. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is about it from this government. That is all they are offering the young people of Australia today.
But Labor offers a different approach. Labor is fighting for what matters to Australians. We are fighting for local jobs. We are fighting to protect Medicare. We are fighting to build a strong economy that delivers for everyone in Australia. We will build Australian first. We will buy Australian first in our contracts. And we will employ Australians first. Because Labor understands that, at a time of high unemployment in Western Australia, stagnating wage growth, below-target inflation and with economic bottlenecks aplenty, the time is right—nay, it is required—that we embark on building nation-building infrastructure. The economic benefit of investing in WA's infrastructure is there. Last year, the Infrastructure Australia audit found that seven out of the top 10 roads with the biggest congestion costs in the country by 2031 are all going to be in Western Australia.
The experts know that we should be investing in infrastructure. The new Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, told a parliamentary committee this year that monetary policy simply was not doing the job to boost the economy. He said:
You can keep doing more of something in the hope that it finally works, and my judgement is that that has not been particularly useful.
Well, the old maxim is that insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and this is apparently true in our economy and it is the approach being taken by the Turnbull government. They are playing the same old tricks as every Liberal government, and unemployment in my electorate just keeps getting worse. Instead, Mr Lowe called on the Turnbull government to start spending on infrastructure to create jobs. And just this month the IMF said that we should do exactly the same thing. In fact, they said:
A more sustained, multi-year increase in spending on efficient infrastructure also at the Commonwealth level would be desirable …
That was quite polite language to say: 'Just get on with the job, Mr Turnbull.'
Alas, this government is not listening to the many people across this country, like those in my electorate, who keep saying: 'My children haven't been able to find work since leaving school; what is the government doing about finding kids work?' or, 'All of the job ads ask for people with experience, but I need to pay my bills too,' or, 'I've just got a degree and I can't find a job,' or, 'I've been made redundant and there's no jobs out there,' or, 'I've got laid off, but they kept the guy on the 457 visa,' or, 'We've all been laid off, but we've been offered new contracts as casuals at 20 per cent less than before.' When it comes to a job plan, the Turnbull government has a plan for themselves while young Australians have to fend for themselves. (Time expired)
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:03): As the gallery dwindles to single figures, we are either doing a fabulous job of boring them or they have decided who has won and they have left. It is a very important topic, unemployment, and I accept that. And, as to youth unemployment, there is never a time that we should not be focusing on it. But, to be honest—and for those just refilling those seats in the gallery and getting us back into double figures again—this is an area where there should be way more agreement between the major parties than there appears to be today.
Youth unemployment is something that every OECD nation struggles with, and typically it just follows how the economy is going. It is generally a reasonable benchmark of economic opportunity. You will remember that, back in 2009 when we had the GFC, youth unemployment just jumped instantly from single figures up to 12 or 13 per cent. At the time, we were not highly critical of the government for that; we knew that that was a temporary and passing jump in unemployment that ultimately would come down—as it did, with mining employment. So, too, when mining, iron ore and coal prices fell in 2013, we saw an instant jump in both general unemployment figures and youth unemployment.
The absence of a counterfactual means that anyone can sit here and chop up the figures however they want and try and come up with a month when it goes up, and complain it is the government's fault; that is usually what oppositions do. But in reality what you actually need is a comparator economy, and probably the best one that we have at our disposal is Canada. It is an economy of roughly the same size, with a typical resource and service mix, similar to Australia's. So let us see how Canada is going. Canada's unemployment, unlike Australia's at 5.7 per cent, is rigidly stuck at 7-plus. And you might say, 'Let's have a look at the blend that the first speaker here referred to, of part-time and full-time work.' Let us assume that part-time work is terrible, as they would make out, and full-time work is the Holy Grail. Over in Canada, of their 140,000 new jobs created just this month, 124,000 were part-time. Let us duck across to Australia's figures, where unemployment fell and overall employment went to nearly 12,000,000 Australians. Our full-time employment rose by 41,000 to 8.blip million, and part-time employment decreased by 31,000 positions. Yet, if you listened to the speakers here on the other side, they would make out that the world was falling apart because all the employment is part-time. There is only one problem with that: the stats are telling you precisely the opposite—that part-time jobs were falling last month and full-time work was increasing.
Let us go back a step. Let us not just stick to that. Let us come back to the Labor Party preoccupation that everything that is part-time is bad—because there is never ever a carer of children or a mother who wants to return to work part-time, is there! The problem with part-time work is: they do not pay union dues. That is the great problem with part-time work. The problem with contractors and part-time and flexible hours is that you cannot rip money out of them for union dues, which is exactly what, for these guys, pays their way—#credit card, #Chinese restaurant. 'If you can't get union dues out of them, it's not a real job'—and that is what underpins this attack today: that casual work is no work at all. The fact that young Australians can have two part-time jobs and then transition to a full-time job and then go back to part-time while they study is of no concern to the Labor Party over here; it is just that it is a full-time unionised job or there is no job at all. Of course, these solo flights of employment policy, from mobs who have basically got a university bachelor degree and moved into advising a federal minister, come from the fact that they have never worked in the private sector. So none of them over there have ever employed anyone. And anyone who has ever worked over there has, basically, been on a public salary.
So let's zoom up to Queensland where we can learn a little about what is going on under a Labor model. With Labor today we discover that their job creation is 80 percent public sector. When Labor gets rid of unemployment they just employ more bureaucrats. That is right. You get a few more pot plants, a couple of executive toys and a little water bubbler over here, and then you fill the desks with public servants. That is the solution to unemployment on the Labor Party side. We have 243,000 bureaucrats in Queensland—13,000 more than there was even before Campbell Newman came along. Let's break the numbers down. No, they are not all doctors and nurses. No, they are not all teachers. Here we go: 8,783 new Queensland public servants; 1,000 of them in health are doctors, nurses and allied health workers. How on earth can you employ that many people in health and not accidentally run into a patient? For goodness sake!
Let's fly across to education. We have 850 new people in education. Two hundred of them are teachers and 400 of them are teacher aides. How do you squeeze another 250 people into Ann Street and public service and education? They are doing what—high intervention programs on the computer for education? For goodness sake, get real! We are trying to employ people in the private sector. You do free trade agreements. The Labor side was an ideas free zone for six years. You signed one free trade agreement. That was Korea. It took you four years to do it. We have done every other one. Jobs come from free trade. That is what we are delivering.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:08): I must say that I am a little stuck for words as I rise to follow the member for Bowman, who has been on a flight of fancy that has left all of us over here a bit jealous, to tell you the truth, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton.
An opposition member: And beyond!
Ms RYAN: Yes! I am not going to say it folks. But what I am going to say is this: for a man who went to an election campaign running around his electorate screaming 'jobs and growth', he has very little today to say about growing jobs in this country.
This is an important MPI. It is a critical MPI for the young people in my electorate. The young people in my electorate—member for Bowman, you might want to listen—do not care about Canada's economy. They do not care about Queensland's economy. They care about the local economy and their chance to get a job. That is what the young people and their families in my electorate care about. They care about it because the unemployment rate in my electorate has been hovering above 15 per cent.
In 2011 when we last had a census—I know it is hard not to do the joke—there were 30,000 school students in the electorate of Lalor. For next year the projection just in the state school sector is 30,000. So I am predicting there will be, probably, 40,000 school-age people in Lalor next year. That is an intense number of people. If you think about that 30,000 going through since 2011, it is an enormous number of kids who have left school and supposedly gone on to their rosy future.
I saw some hard things in schools when I worked in them, with teachers trying to support kids to leave school and get into employment. But since I became a member of parliament I have heard the most heart-breaking stories. I have seen that with a number of young people who left school and got into a part-time job—perhaps they carried it over from school—some of them lost that job when they turned 18 because lots of franchises are not interested in employing kids on full wages.
It is really hard to sit opposite every day and have silence from the other side about youth employment. Then when they do come up with a solution it is an exploitative solution. It is not a solution that is going to grow jobs; it is not a solution that is going to create jobs. They have this mythical notion that if you cut everybody's taxes it is like watering weeds—jobs will just grow everywhere. I am afraid they will not. Let me take you through this. I had a recent conversation with a family in the electorate, and they asked me a really good question. They said that once upon a time when we built infrastructure in this country we built into that infrastructure build jobs for young people. We built in training opportunities and apprenticeships. So where are the training opportunities in the NBN? There are not any training opportunities in the NBN because this government is loath to put anything in place that will support or ensure that companies take the responsibility for the future that we expect them to take. We expect them to be good corporate citizens. We expect them to join hands with the rest of us and create a future for all of us, not just a future for some.
We have heard a lot over there and we have heard a lot from members on this side, too, about the billion dollars cut from apprenticeships and training—which is absolutely appalling. The lack of commitment to school education where we have retention targets—we have reached 80 per cent in Victoria. The money will be ripped away after 2017. Will that retention rate plummet? I suggest it will. We will have less qualified children leaving our schools. The thing that really gets under my goat in this place every day, along with the silence from the others opposite, is this notion that they are building a country based on individual freedoms. There are a lot of young people in my electorate. What those on the other side have been building since they took government is a freedom to fail. They are giving kids permission to fail. They rant, they rave and they exhort young people. They denigrate young people in this chamber—'Put your phone down and you will get a job.' If it is as easy as that, I will go house to house, and we will put them all into a box. It is a joke.
The other part that really disturbs me is a notion from those opposite that young people can live on $264 a week and be independent or develop the independence that is required to live away from home. The kids in my electorate come from families with a median income of $52,000. Their salaries are actually needed to contribute to the rent or to pay the mortgage in those homes. At $264 a week, those kids are, (a) never leaving home, and, (b) never going to be independent.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:13): I am delighted to participate in this matter of public importance, particularly as somebody who grew up in the 1990s—as somebody who grew up with the background of the 'recession that we had to have'. I think it is particularly ironic to be receiving a lecture from the Labor Party on youth unemployment given that they were a party in the Keating years that gave us a record 34 per cent youth unemployment for a generation of school leavers who wondered what they would do for a job. What was then Prime Minister Keating's solution to all this? It was to tell a group of students, 'Go get a job.' But, unfortunately, there were no jobs to have.
That was the record of the Keating government. But the poor record of Labor in the youth jobs area continued in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. What they did to apprenticeships in those years is an absolute scandal. Apprenticeships are a great pathway for employment. Yet Labor's record of mismanagement in apprenticeships continued. They cut employer incentives, incentives for people to take on people who had not had a job before or who were in the middle of training. They cut those not once, not twice, not thrice, but nine times. They cut effectively $1.2 billion out of employer incentives to hire apprentices, and a quarter of a billion of that money came during the time when the now Leader of the Opposition was the relevant minister.
And what was the effect of that? When you cut incentives for employers to take on apprenticeships, commencements fall. In fact, commencements halved. That is Labor's record in relation to apprenticeships. But Labor has tried to towel up this side of the House in relation to the VET FEE-HELP scandal, but this was something that occurred on Labor's watch: the VET FEE-HELP scandal, where the Gillard government failed to create adequate regulation of VET FEE-HELP and saw this massive growth of a spivocracy, where people came along and preyed on the most vulnerable people in our community, signed them up into courses that they had no chance of completing and left them with massive debts and no qualifications. This was Labor's management of a key youth employment pathway through VET FEE-HELP.
Now, under this government, Labor in opposition continue to oppose youth employment programs. They oppose the PaTH program. We heard many speakers on the other side denigrate the PaTH program. But the PaTH program provides great skills for people who have never had employment before to get a job. The PaTH program will help 120,000 job seekers aged under 25. It gives them the basic skills to make them employable—to turn up on time, to behave properly and in a professional manner.
It gives them a trial internship. It is not a wage that they will be paid on their internship; it is a welfare supplement of $200 per fortnight to take these internships. I do not know why the Labor Party is so opposed to internships, because by my calculation 68 per cent of shadow ministers and parliamentary secretaries have interns or volunteers on their staff. If it is good enough for them to take on interns, why isn't it good enough to have this great employment pathways program?
The third thing that the employment pathways program will do is to create youth bonuses, those employer incentives. Employers tell us that, effectively, it is difficult to justify taking on people who have no real skills. So the employer incentives, the youth bonuses, provide them with an opportunity to do that.
Who is in favour of the PaTH program? The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is in favour of it. The Business Council of Australia is in favour of it. And why wouldn't they be? They represent the people who actually employ people, who actually give them jobs. But it is not just employers who are in favour of it. The Brotherhood of St Laurence is in favour of it. The Brotherhood of St Laurence is hardly a neoliberal organisation. It is an organisation that is noted for its charitable and welfare effects.
But who is opposed, and who is driving the Labor Party's opposition to this? It is our old friends at the ACTU. When the ACTU says, 'Jump,' Labor say, 'How high?' I think this is a terrible portent, a sign of things to come, of what Labor would be like in government. Whenever the union movement wants things—even if the Brotherhood of St Laurence wants it, even if business groups want it, even if it is good for the country—they will give the union movement what it wants. It is just like 457s, an issue that was raised in this debate as well. We had from one member the idea of what I would call 'economic Hansonism', Australian jobs for Australians. It was effectively a dog-whistle attack on 457s, which are a key employment visa to fill skills in our economy. We need that, and we need to carry on with the government's important youth pathways programs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 (No. 2)
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:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading as:
(1) after the introduction of the backpacker tax in 2015 there has been widespread damage and financial cost to the agriculture, hospitality and tourism sectors across regional Australia including Tasmania and Queensland;
(2) the package has been criticised by no less than 15 Coalition Members of Parliament;
(3) no consultation occurred with the agriculture sector before the tax was first introduced;
(4) the tax rate changed from 19 per cent to 15 per cent after the Treasurer was:
(a) pressured by the Labor Party's strong position in favour of a 10.5 per cent tax rate;
(b) pressured by the revolt from the horticulture and tourism sectors; and
(c) rolled on economic policy by the crossbench;
(5) the tax rate change will cost $120 million despite the Minister for Finance saying that the Government had compromised "as far as we can sensibly compromise, given the Budget bottom line cannot afford a further tax cut beyond what it is that we have put on the table"; and
(6) the Government has not demonstrated how the 15 per cent figure will leave Australia more competitive compared to a rate of 10.5 per cent".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (16:19): The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (16:19): I move:
That the question be put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put.
The House divided. [16:23]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (16:28): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that that amendment be agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
The House divided. [16:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [16:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (16:43): Eighteen months of rolling farce only for the government to gag legislation. Eighteen months of mistakes, mis-steps and lack of consultation, and all of a sudden, after failing to bring it into the House and the Senate last week, after failing to deal with this matter comprehensively, the government takes the decisive action of a gag. Why? To allow National Party members to vote for a 15 per cent backpacker tax. That is what happened in the House a few moments ago: Nationals and rural Liberals voted for a backpacker tax rate of 15 per cent when they could have shown a bit of backbone, a bit of courage, and insisted on a 10½ per cent backpacker tax rate.
We will give them another opportunity. We will give them another opportunity, because we will move now, in detail, an amendment which would substitute 10½ per cent for 15 per cent. This is an opportunity for the National Party to grow a spine. This is an opportunity for the National Party to stand up, in Canberra, to the Liberals. This is an opportunity now for this parliament, yet again, to tell this Treasurer that he is out of touch and he has got it wrong. It is an opportunity to tell this Treasurer that he is not up to the job and to go back to the drawing board. It is an opportunity to give us a backpacker tax rate that is competitive with New Zealand so that the horticultural, agricultural, hospitality and tourism sectors can be competitive and attract backpackers, and in those regions those backpackers can then spend their earnings.
I have a little update for the Treasurer, who says, 'The Labor Party wants backpackers in Australia to pay no tax.' Well, 10½ per cent is not nothing. That is my update for the Treasurer. It has a zero in it, in the 10. I do accept that fact. I concede that point to the Treasurer, who has been going around saying, 'Bill Shorten and the Labor Party don't want backpackers to pay any tax.' That has never been true. It is not true now. And 10½ is more than zero. It is a rate which would make Australia competitive. It would give this government the opportunity to show that it has listened—finally—after 18 months of policy on the run, 18 months of policy which has been ill designed and ill thought out.
Here we have a government which, on budget night, without a skerrick of consultation, blindsided Australia's farmers. They actually managed to get the NFF offside, which is quite an achievement for the National Party. They managed it today, and they have managed it through this rolling crisis of policy incompetence.
The fact of the matter is that Australia does need a backpacker tax. We recognise that Australia does need some revenue measures. We are glad that the Treasurer has found a revenue measure that he actually can support—this Treasurer who denies that there is a revenue problem in Australia and who has denied consistently that there is a need to increase revenue. But the one that he has found that he can support he has completely botched the implementation of. That is the problem for the Treasurer: when he actually manages to get it right for once, he completely botches the implementation. By his botching of the implementation, there has already been damage.
This is not just about what happens in the future. This is not just about what happens next year. Already backpackers around the world have looked at this debate and have said, 'Australia is a less attractive destination.' Australia's regions have already paid the price for this Treasurer. They have paid the price in North Queensland. They have paid the price in rural Victoria. They have paid the price right across Australia's regional and rural areas. It is the members on this side who would have spoken in this debate who would have pointed out that there has already been a price to be paid, because members on this side of the House are in touch with their communities. They are in touch with their tourist operators who say, 'We are seeing numbers dry up.' When a backpacker earns money, they then engage in some tourism, and they spend that money in regional Australia. So Australia's farmers have paid a price for this bloke; Australia's tourism operators have paid the price for this bloke; and Australia's regional economies have paid the price for this bloke.
What happens now is that the parliament can fix this Treasurer's errors, as we so often have to do. The amendments that have been circulated in my name give this House the opportunity to make the backpacker tax rate 10½ per cent. I ask leave to move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
Mr BOWEN: I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 15), omit "15%", substitute "10.5%".
[tax rate—income not exceeding $37,000]
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (table item 1), omit "15%', substitute "10.5%".
[tax rate—income not exceeding $37,000]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is that seconded by the honourable member for Hunter?
Mr Fitzgibbon: I second the amendments. In keeping with the agreement, I resist the temptation to speak.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The House divided. [16:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (16:58): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:59): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Grayndler from moving immediately—That:
(1) government business order of the day No. 2, Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 be discharged; and
(2) the reintroduction of a bill relating to the Passenger Movement Charge not be permitted unless it does not contravene well established Parliamentary practice by purporting to bind future Parliaments.
Leave not granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Grayndler from moving immediately—That:
(1) government business order of the day No. 2, Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 be discharged; and
(2) the reintroduction of a bill relating to the Passenger Movement Charge not be permitted unless it does not contravene well established Parliamentary practice by purporting to bind future Parliaments.
Mr Speaker, the motion that I am seeking to suspend standing orders in order to move here today is consistent with your statement to the House earlier this morning, where you pointed out the fact that it is within the parameters of this parliament to make laws at any time. Indeed, the passenger movement charge increase of $5 that is provided for by the bill that is before the House does just that. Given the fact that the government itself promised, prior to the 2 July election, that there would be no increase in the passenger movement charge, it is, frankly, absurd that this parliament would consider legislation that purports to bind not just this parliament but the next parliament as well, for the next five years, to not have an increase in the passenger movement charge.
The fact is this: an increase in the passenger movement charge bears no relation to the issue of the appropriate level of taxation for backpackers who work in Australia. That is why, earlier today, we moved to separate the bills. It is also the case that the increase in the passenger movement charge was not part of the original package that was part of the May 2015 budget. Over 16 months later, in September 2016, the government announced further changes to the package and randomly added this $5 increase to the passenger movement charge to fund other, unrelated policy decisions. The increase in the passenger movement charge was done without any consultation with the sectors affected, including airlines, cruise ship companies, tourism operators and peak tourism organisations.
This legislation that is before the parliament today not only seeks to break the promise that was made just months ago, prior to the July election; it also seeks to bind governments, not just up until the next election but during the next term. The sole reason for that happening is that last Thursday—the government having lost the vote on the passenger movement charge increase in the Senate last Wednesday night—when the One Nation senators walked onto the floor of the Senate, they were handed an amendment which was written for them by the government in their name, and they were told that they could move that amendment to the legislation that was before the Senate last Thursday. They then received advice from the clerks, who were also caught on the hop in the Senate with this last-minute, policy-on-the-run proposition. The clerks ruled that it could not be moved in the Senate. Then the legislation came across here. The government were in a farcical position whereby they only had the numbers for a majority for the passenger movement charge increase by, essentially, telling the senators a falsehood—that somehow they could make a decision today that would bind the next budget, the one after that, the one after that, the one after that and the one after that, regardless of who was in government.
I accept the explanation that Senator Hanson of One Nation gave before the Senate last Thursday in response to Senator Wong, where said that she was inexperienced. She was indeed. But once bitten, twice shy with this mob, because they got them to vote for a breaking of a promise, and they broke the promise to those crossbench senators on the very same day. We then had a farcical situation whereby they came in here and moved legislation, with not just the passenger movement charge but the supposed five-year freeze in it. That is why standing orders should be suspended, Mr Speaker, because, as you pointed out earlier today, it is simply not possible for this parliament to bind future parliaments. Any future increase in the passenger movement charge will occur exactly the way that this one is—a government coming in here, having the numbers in the House of Representatives and then trying to secure the numbers in the Senate.
The policy just did not exist until the 2 July election. It existed beyond that because, after this election, unlike the one before, the government actually appointed a tourism minister. The tourism minister actually got a dixer in one of the first weeks of sitting. The member for Moncrieff, Mr Ciobo, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, rose in the parliament and said that increases in the passenger movement charge would choke 'the golden goose that is Australia's tourism industry'. That is what he had to say—not in the distant past but right here in this parliament, in this chamber. Then the government have the hide to move legislation that allegedly binds future governments. It is an absolute absurdity.
The government, having not consulted on the passenger movement charge before it was introduced; having promised to not do it; having reaffirmed that on the floor of the House of Representatives, saying it was bad policy, in the first and only dixer taken on tourism since they came to office in 2013; having lost the vote in the Senate last Wednesday night; and having recommitted the vote on the Thursday morning on the basis of a falsehood told to the crossbenchers, then came in here this week, yesterday, and moved this legislation, trying to ram through the parliament changes to the passenger movement charge, with a nonsense alleged five-year freeze.
That is why standing orders should be suspended and why we should, frankly, decline to give this bill a second reading. We should decline to consider this bill. It should be discharged by resolution of this House and it should be discharged until such time as the government can actually put up legislation that it itself is not laughing at behind closed doors, that it itself is not running around going: 'We conned those crossbench senators. We were short votes in the Senate. We lost the vote on the Wednesday night but put it forward and we conned them by telling them that it was a good idea.' But this follows of course the absurdity of the backpacker tax, which followed the same thing: not thought out, no economic modelling, no consultation, a shemozzle and a change—32.5 down to 19 down to 15. Who knows where the government will actually end up on this position.
It was careless of some of the crossbench senators to trust those opposite. But I do say this, having some experience at running a minority parliament: you can only lie to people once. You can only do it once. And that is why, when you are dealing with people who are crossbenchers, you have to treat them with respect and treat them with the dignity they deserve as elected members of parliament. What this legislation purports to do is, quite frankly, absurd.
What is very clear from this government is it is incapable of running this parliament. And if you cannot run the parliament, you cannot run the country. With the backpacker tax fiasco and the passenger movement charge fiasco, they have shown that they are incapable of running the country. Here we have tourism, an industry that employs more than one million Australians, an industry that contributes $107 billion to the economy, an industry where every dollar spent on tourism generates another 92c in other parts of the economy and an industry that deserves support not this attack with no notice and no consultation that we have seen from the government. That is why standing orders should be suspended and that is why we should discharge this legislation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (17:10): I second the motion. I rise to support the resolution put forward by the member for Grayndler not only for all of the reasons he has put so well but also on behalf of the tourism sector and of coarse on behalf of the many members on our side who were denied the opportunity to make a contribution to the bill relating to the backpacker tax—the member for Paterson; the member for Solomon; all our Tasmanian members, the members for Lyons, Braddon and Bass. Regional members right across this country were eager to make representations on behalf of their constituents, their growers and their farmers in their communities but were denied the opportunity to do so notwithstanding of course the fact that we could not have a Senate inquiry into a bill containing not one but three tax measures because it was so urgent. Yet here we are this evening denying local members the opportunity to speak on behalf of their growers and their farmers because suddenly this is such an urgent rush for this government. Why is this such an urgent rush for this government now, both the bill currently being debated and the one before it? Because this government has made such a mess of this process over the course of the last 18 months. This is a process that began during the May 2015 budget. We were told during the election campaign that the government would backflip on the backpacker tax measure, only to finally get an idea of the government's final position—we thought then it was the final position—of 19 per cent throughout the course of October. So any delay in these bills is entirely a matter for the government and falls entirely in the responsibility of this government.
The tourism sector just like the agriculture sector is angry. This is not the way you do policy. You do not do policy by deciding how much money you want to raise over four years and then build a policy around it. It is extraordinary that when the government had their first back down to 19 per cent that, rather than give up the revenue, they insisted on making it a budget-neutral decision by working the tourism sector with an increase in the passenger movement charge notwithstanding the fact that they had made it clear to all and sundry that they would not do so—a rolled gold pre-election promise that they would not do so.
But to make it worse, they decided that they would rape and pillage the superannuation accounts of international backpackers. This is the most extraordinary piece of public policy I think I have seen in this place. So, in future, farmers and tourism operators will have a tax on them. Small businesses will pay nine per cent into the accounts of backpackers as a superannuation payment, and the Treasurer, sitting opposite, will immediately take 95 per cent of that back. Backpackers in the past have not been real flash in claiming their superannuation when they go home so now it is only five per cent to be claimed, I can assure you that almost 100 per cent of backpackers will not be bothering in the future. That is an extraordinary piece of public policy when you think about it—make the employer pay and then tax it at 95 per cent.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: The Treasurer is right: I am speaking about the need to suspend standing orders and all the reasons this resolution should be supported by this House.
This government has been accused of many things. It has been accused of dysfunction, it has been accused of chaos, it has been accused quite rightly just now by the member for Grayndler of being unable to operate this place, unable to operate this chamber and indeed the other place. But what really concerns me more than anything is the way the conventions of this place are coming under attack. All those decades of convention and protocols in this place that this government is just throwing out the window. And of course what also concerns me is the sheer lack of integrity of this government. We see it with respect to Senator Brandis. We see it through the sacking of the respected departmental secretary; Dr Paul Grimes. We see it with the relocation of the APVMA. We see it in the way government members absolutely spin their intentions, with respect to both the backpacker tax and the passenger movement charge.
I say this is a government entirely without integrity. This is a government holding all the wrong priorities, putting their own interests in things like the ABCC—which is flawed legislation—and taking money off people like tourism operators and, worse, in my case, struggling farmers, to force their legislation through the Senate.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (17:15): Standing orders should not be suspended because the opposition is just simply seeking, once again, to try and delay and frustrate and wreck. The government is getting on with delivering our program, some $21 billion and more, including the measure that was just passed by the House, in relation to the 15 per cent backpacker tax—now on its way to the Senate—which ensures that the government has legislated more than $21 billion worth of budget improvement measures since the last election.
Those opposite continue their seek-and-destroy mission on the budgets, constantly trying to frustrate the efforts the government is making to consolidate the budget to ensure we protect our AAA credit rating. Those opposite vote against these measures. Those opposite seek to delay and frustrate these measures. Those opposite actively seek, in their calls for chaos, to deny Australia the opportunity to protect its AAA credit rating. That is why standing orders should not be suspended. This is another attempt from the opposition to undermine Australia's strong position in advocating and making the case for why we should retain that rating. And we have a strong case for that because $21 billion and more have been passed in budget improvement measures since the last election. We want to keep getting on with that job and that is why we do not think things should be delayed here.
The only reason I can think of, as to why Labor would not want to commit to not increasing the passenger movement charge over the next five years, is that if they were to win the next election they might want to increase it again. It is true that there are precedents for the types of bills that are the subject of this debate, in relation to the passenger movement charge. It is a valid measure seeking to ensure that the rate of the passenger movement charge is not increased for five years from 1 July 2017.
Previous parliaments have validly considered and passed bills that contain restrictions seeking to bind future governments. One example is subsection (3) clause (2) of the Flags Act 1953—well-known, I am sure, to the member for Grayndler—which provides that the Australian national flag is not to be changed. Something I heartily agree with. It says:
(a) a new flag or flags, and the flag referred to in subsection (1), are submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives; and
(b) the new flag, or one of the new flags, is chosen by a majority of all the electors voting.
That is just one example of the type of a bill that would seek to bind a future parliament. But if those opposite—God forbid—are elected at the next election and want to rush into this parliament and up the passenger movement charge, that would be a matter for them. And they would have form because, when they were last in government, they increased the passenger movement charge from $38 to $55—they increased it by 48 per cent.
This is a modest change since 2012 of just $5, which takes into account the movement in indexation on inflation over that period. But the other thing it takes into account is not once, over the course that we have been in government, have we gone to the passenger movement charge to fund the very significant works that we have done to improve border management and national security, which is benefited and funded by these types of measures. We have, since the 2015-16 budget, provided $26.6 million to establish the permanent border-clearance services at Townsville and Sunshine Coast airports to support regular international services and $93.7 million for the Seamless Traveller initiative, which includes rollout of automatic biometric processing at major air and sea ports. Since 2012-13 there has been an increase in funding provided to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection due to an increase in international passengers being declared.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: And as the member opposite interjects, I think, seeking to be helpful—which would be a record in this place—
Mr Albanese: Always!
Mr MORRISON: The reason that these measures should not be delayed, by the sort of antics we are seeing from the opposition, is that the government has been delivering in all of these areas and should not be further frustrated by pursuing the measures that we are putting before this parliament. In addition to all of that, the streamlined SmartGate traveller processing trials have been put in place for visitors from Hong Kong and China, during 2016, and we have had $719 million provided to the Australian Border Force over six years, including $438.7 million in capital funding. Enhancements to the Australian border protection services commenced in 2014-15, including through improved trade and passenger facilitation, better targeting and interception of illegal trade and travellers through enhanced information communications technology systems and intelligence and enforcement capability, and in strengthening the integrity and capability of the Border Force.
Those opposite, when they were in government, jacked up the passenger movement charge from $37 to $55, and they ripped money out of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. We held it constant, since 2012. After we came to government in 2013—there had been no change since 2012—we kept it in that place. We invested back in border protection; we invested back in the services that were being provided at our border to make things more secure. In addition to that, we supported the tourism industry, most recently, through the changes that stemmed from the Financial System Inquiry, where we have abolished, outlawed, excessive surcharging on credit and debit cards.
If you come in at an airport and get into a cab or if you go to a hotel, a concert or anywhere you pay with your credit card, you would have saved many times over what this increase in the passenger movement charge would be imposing on any traveller to Australia. So travellers coming to Australia are already miles ahead when it comes to a decrease in the cost of them moving around the country, enjoying this wonderful country, because the government was actually delivering. We have made one change, and that is to increase the passenger movement charge by $5. For what reason?
Because we gave a commitment at the last election that we would resolve the backpacker tax arrangements by the end of this year and we would do it by ensuring there would be no net cost to the budget. We made that commitment before the election, but we were not the only ones. Those opposite made exactly the same commitment. They said they would deal with this matter without a cost to the budget. So what the government did is we went down the pass and we presented a compromise package which ensured including the passenger movement charge and the superannuation measure that I note the shadow minister previously made reference to.
On the superannuation measure, what he is suggesting is that the superannuation payments to foreign workers should be abolished. Not only do those opposite think foreign workers should pay a lower rate of tax; they also believe they should cost less than Australian workers for those who are employing them. If you do not, as those opposite suggest, actually tax the superannuation and you rid that impost on the employer, then the employer has an incentive to actually employ foreign workers. The united federation of foreign workers union representatives that sit opposite are committed to lower pay for foreign workers over Australian workers and to lower taxes compared to Australian workers.
Australian workers pay on average in their wages some 23.8 per cent. That is what the average full-time wage earner in Australia pays across their entire income—23.8 per cent. What those opposite are saying is that the average tax paid by a foreign worker should be 10.5 per cent. But if you are Australian and you live here all year and you pay taxes all year, you are going to pay 23.8 per cent, and the foreign workers might be here for just six months. Let's give the foreign workers a break, shall we, and make sure that not only do they pay less tax but also the employers pay them less! That is what those opposite are proposing to do with these measures.
What we are seeing from the opposition is more frustration and delay. I think the Leader of the Opposition would be very pleased about that because then the member for Grayndler will be very occupied when it comes to these matters. Once these matters are dealt with, the member for Grayndler will have a bit of time on his hands and he can get back to his other job which involves unsettling and disrupting and removing the Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the member for Grayndler be agreed to.
The House divided. [17:29]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (17:33): I move:
That all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
'the House:
(1) declines to give the bill a second reading as the existence of this Bill is policy-on-the-run in that:
(a) an increase in the Passenger Movement Charge bears no relation to the issue of the appropriate level of taxation for backpackers who work in Australia;
(b) an increase in the Passenger Movement Charge was not part of the original package in the May 2015 Budget;
(c) over sixteen months later, in September 2016, the Government announced further changes to the package and randomly added a $5 increase to the Passenger Movement Charge to fund other unrelated policy decisions;
(d) the increase in the Passenger Movement Charge was done without any consultation with the sectors affected – including airlines, cruise ship companies, tourism operators, and tourism peak organisations.
(e) the Treasurer indicated in a media conference on November 8 that he would simply seek to double the $5 increase to $10 if other unrelated elements of the package failed; and
(f) the increase in the Passenger Movement Charge has real consequences for tourism and will have jobs impacts in the tourism industry, which employs a million Australians, is Australia's largest services export and has been nominated as one of Australia's five super growth sectors; and
(2) notes further that the handling of the Passenger Movement in the Parliament has been chaotic in that:
(a) no modelling of the economic and jobs impact of this measure accompanies the Bill before the Parliament;
(b) this increase breaks an election commitment from the Government not to increase the Charge;
(c) this Bill directly contradicts the statement of the Minister for Tourism, who told the Parliament on August 31 that previous increases in the Passenger Movement Charge would choke "the golden goose that is Australia's tourism industry";
(d) the increase failed in the Senate last week after the Government sought to bring it on for a vote; and
(e) the five-year freeze would extend beyond the life of this Parliament, and is a meaningless statement designed to secure support for this flawed legislation'.
Speaking to the amendment briefly, it is very clear that this is a clear breach of a commitment by the government. We know now that there is absolutely no possibility of this parliament binding future parliaments for five years and that that is simply a con in order to secure the support of the Senate crossbench.
Importantly, the tourism sector have been treated with contempt. They were treated with contempt when the government failed to nominate a tourism minister after the 2013 election. They were treated with contempt when the people in Senate estimates could not say where the tourism sector would be represented and by which department. They were treated with contempt by the failure of the government to produce a tourism policy at the last election. They were treated with contempt when the government then failed to consult with them before this increase of $5 in the passenger movement charge. They were treated with contempt when the Treasurer threatened to double the increase over unrelated measures, in a fit of pique for which this Treasurer is becoming known.
The fact is that tourism is a vital sector for Australia. The truth is that it cannot continue to be treated by this government like a cash cow. The passenger movement charge was originally introduced to pay for customs services and, essentially, a user-pays model for services provided by the Australian government. That has long since gone. The passenger movement charge delivers more than $1 billion, most of which goes straight into consolidated revenue, as will this increase go straight into consolidated revenue. At a time when the tourism sector employs many people, particularly in regional Australia, it has been hit with a double whammy of the backpacker tax and this increase. That is why I am moving this amendment. I commend the amendment to the House. This increase should not go forward. Labor are being consistent with the policy approach that we had at the election and consistent with the approach taken by people such as the member for Solomon, who will second this amendment. He campaigned on this issue, as did the member for Lyons, the member for Paterson and the member for Brand, who will also have the opportunity to make contributions to this debate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (17:38): I second the amendment. I just had the experience of sitting through the Treasurer of Australia continue to spout the mistruths and obfuscation that we have seen with this issue in recent months, and it has just got crazy this last couple of weeks. Those opposite have not known what they are supporting or why and they are not sure who they stand for, but what we have seen is that they have not stood for small and medium businesses in this country. They have not stood for the tourism businesses that are hurting and they have not stood for the agricultural industry and horticultural businesses like the mango growers and other growers in my electorate. I was concerned that the voices from my electorate would not have the opportunity to be heard in this place, and I thank the member for Grayndler and others who have worked to make sure that the voices from our extremely disappointed industries are heard.
The problem with the Treasurer—and we see this in question time—is that he thinks that the louder he speaks, the more convincing he is or the more powerful an argument he has or the better he will be able to convince us that he knows what he is doing. Unfortunately for us, because he is the Treasurer of Australia, it is becoming more and more apparent that he does not know what he is doing. He starts yelling louder and louder during question time, when he should be explaining to us the economic vision for our country but instead is spreading mistruths, and I think that is an absolute shame. He continued the job of Joe Hockey, who 18 months ago announced that anyone working on holiday in Australia will pay tax from the first dollar they earn. We have no problem with that, except that the government wanted to impose a tax rate of 32.5 per cent. We did not hear too much from some industry bodies, unfortunately, like the National Farmers Federation, but other industry bodies were screaming—and why were they screaming? They were screaming because a major source of their labour was going to be decimated and slashed.
The effect of that can be seen if you go out onto the ground and talk to people who run small and medium tourism and horticultural businesses. People who are working the land and want to double the size of their farm have said to me, 'Luke, why would I double the size of my farm when I haven't got the labour to pick these kilometres and kilometres of fruit that is rotting on the ground?' We did some sums and we think that, conservatively, the mango industry alone in the Top End is down $70 million as a result of not having enough labour to pick the fruit. Backpacker numbers are down 30 per cent in the Top End—30. You guys purport to be the supporters of small business and medium business and yet you have cut the labour from underneath them and they are suffering. There are small tourism businesses in the Top End that are really hurting because we have had this 30 per cent drop in backpackers, who once used their services. It has been really disappointing. As a new member to this place, I have seen the way that the government have flip-flopped, going from 32 per cent to 19 per cent and down to 15 per cent—we would like them to go to 10.5—and they did it all with no modelling, none, let alone the lack of consultation that was there for everyone to see. I have farmers, growers and the tourism industry saying, 'Luke, what are they doing? Don't they want us to succeed? Don't they want to grow the north or Tassie?' Regional Australia is really hurting as a result of this backpacker tax fiasco. Of course 15 is better than 19, but it could have been better. We could have been more competitive, and that is a shame.
I want to finish by saying something on behalf of constituents of mine, Leo and Steve Skliros, who run a big mango farm. They said, 'Look, we need long-term solutions. We've got millions of dollars worth of mangoes going to waste. We've got people who want our product overseas. We don't know why the government is not supporting us.' I will continue to fight for the small and medium businesses in my electorate and hope that the government lifts its act.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (17:45): This so-called backpacker tax has been a joke from the start; however, the punchline is not funny for two of our most important industries: agriculture and tourism. The government has mismanaged this issue from the outset and no doubt it has been costly—costly to regional communities, costly to communities that rely on tourism, costly to communities that rely on agriculture and costly to communities like my own in the electorate of Paterson, which has the triple whammy of being a regional community that relies on tourism and agriculture.
My electorate of Paterson straddles the beautiful Hunter Valley, with its vineyards and restaurants and blue-water wonderland of Port Stephens with dolphins and whales. Both of these areas are reliant on tourism but also on agriculture. The alluvial plains of the Hunter Valley are the food bowl for the region and beyond. Our vineyards produce world-famous wine. Both of these areas rely on agriculture and tourism, and both of those industries rely on backpackers.
We are sending the wrong message to overseas backpackers with this tax—that these regions, these industries and this country does not welcome overseas backpackers. I would like to share some views on this subject that were reported in the Newcastle Herald in May this year. In a report on the backpacker tax, the chairman of Tourism Hunter, Will Creedon, who owns renowned restaurants in Newcastle and the Hunter, described the backpacker tax as 'poor policy'. This is the chairman of Tourism Hunter. Mr Creedon said:
It could have been thought out better and I hope it's reversed.
This was after the government had decided, just before the election, to delay the 32.5 per cent tax that would have come in on 1 July for six months pending a review. In that Newcastle Herald report of May this year, Mr Creedon said that backpackers brought a refreshing work ethic to the region, and that taxes that made working holidays in Australia less viable would be detrimental to local hospitality. He said:
They bring a new level of customer service.
And:
We are very dependent on them, and it flies below the radar. We need them here to raise the bar.
That Newcastle Herald story also quoted 21-year-old German backpacker Angelina Heck, who has worked in a Newcastle West bar and restaurant for about three years. She was hoping to transition to a study visa, but she said in that story that the proposed new tax had brought forward her plans to return to her native Germany. She said:
It's already hard enough for international people to come to Australia and work.
And she said:
I decided to leave because my visa runs out and with these laws coming in July, it wasn't going to be worth it.
Ms Beck said she believed backpackers had made a contribution to local businesses. That is one business owner and community leader and one backpacker, but the message is the same across the country: Australia relies on backpackers, and backpackers want to come to Australia and work but they find it hard enough already.
I had attempted to speak on this tax in October but the government shut down the debate, just like they have shut it down today. They cannot shut down the voices of our agricultural and tourism businesses that rely on this input. First, there was the backflip from 32.5 to 19 per cent. Now, to appease the Nationals and cosy up to One Nation, they have done a further backflip to 15. Labor has agreed to 10.5. I urge the government to really think about what they are doing to these important sectors. Both industries need certainty, but the tourism gets hit twice because it will also be hit with the increased passenger movement charge that happened in exactly the same way as the backpacker tax—no modelling and no proper consultation. It is policy on the run, which is what we continually seem to see from a government that is clearly on the run.
The idea that you can have a five-year freeze on the passenger movement charge is absurd. How can you bind a government through legislation for the next budget let alone the next parliament? Of course, you cannot. The freeze is just a con by this government. It is a con to convince a group of senators to support their position—a position based on no modelling and, again, no consultation. We know that when the tax was proposed to be 32.5 per cent the backpacker numbers dropped off. The member for Solomon has just given us a very live example of that. We know that when the government backflipped to 19, backpacker numbers kept dropping off. How can we know whether this second backflip will do anything to halt that decline? I cannot see why it would.
When European backpackers look Down Under they look at Australia and they look at New Zealand. What do they see? Two beautiful nations, full of adventure, the chance to work while they party and the chance to pocket a bit of money to further fund their travels. One of those beautiful nations, New Zealand, is taxing them at 10 per cent. The other is Australia that wants to tax them at 15. Which would you choose? 15 or 10? Australia, at 10.5, looks just as appealing as New Zealand at 10, but add another five to that figure and the gloss wears off. If Labor could, we would have no backpacker tax at all, but we understand that sometimes you need a compromise, so we have compromised. We have compromised to 10.5, not 15. It does not even require a backflip for the government to agree to 10.5, merely a hop, skip and a jump, but they will not do that.
Labor will not support this 15 per cent tax. We will stand by our farmers. We will stand by our tourism operators. Labor will stand by our rural and regional communities—far better than this government and the Nationals ever will. Thank you.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (17:51): When this entire package was introduced to the House 18 months ago I was willing to give those opposite the benefit of the doubt. A 32.5 per cent backpacker tax came like a bolt out of the blue to most of us in this House. I was not here then, but I thought that maybe the Nationals and those regional Liberals would do the right thing and see this knocked on the head.
They went to the election promising they would take another look at it. What did we see 18 months later, dragged kicking and screaming to a resolution? The Treasurer, who just wants to pocket the money, who said: 'No. You have to make sure that money stays there. I want the lot. I am not willing to negotiate on anything.' So they came up with this brilliant plan to change the 32.5 per cent to 19 per cent, take away nine per cent super and add five dollars to the passenger movement charge.
Why is this going up? Because this government was dragged kicking and screaming to a resolution. It has been an absolute debacle. They have gone from 19 per cent to 15 per cent. But why 15 per cent? Nobody knows. Where did this figure come from? Where is the evidence?
What we are going to be faced with in this country, and what we are facing now—that is what the farmers in my electorate are telling me—are backpackers not coming to this country. Even before the tax goes in, people are already not coming. They are already changing their plans. They are already deciding they are not going to work on our farms because they have been scared off by this high tax.
This is a mess of the government's own making. As I say, 18 months ago I would have given the Nationals and regional Liberals the benefit of the doubt that maybe they would convince their city colleagues to do the right thing. But I have been sorely disappointed. The Nationals are sitting their mute. They will cross the floor in the Senate over the Adler shotgun. They will make every noise under the sun over 18C so that people can make racist comments. But they will not stand up for farmers and regional communities when it counts.
They will not stand up for jobs. They will not stand up for small businesses in the regions—people who rely on the wages of backpackers when they come through. We need to remember this: backpackers spend nearly all of the money that they earn in regional communities. Are we really willing to forgo that? If they are not coming to Australia, they are not paying tax and they are not spending their money here.
I will now come to the departure tax, the $5 increase—a bigger tax on the way out. Thanks for coming. Here is a bigger tax on the way out. Plus, by the way, we are also taking 95 per cent of your super. Thanks for visiting. Make sure you tell your friends and family what a great time you have had in Australia. What a winning tourism strategy from the so-called party of business! It is absolutely ridiculous. But this was never about regional communities. This was never about getting people onto farms. This was always about a political fix for this government. It saw the bad headlines in the papers, and that is what dragged it into action. It is not about fixing the problem. It is just a political fix.
Tourism bodies know that this departure tax will hurt. Groups in my electorate in Lyons and across Tasmania are saying that this sends the wrong signals. A $5 charge on top of what is already there sends the wrong signals. Tasmania is going through a tourism boom at the moment. It is fantastic. We are full of people. But, if this comes in, what signal does that send? As the member for Paterson quite rightly said, add that to a bigger backpacker tax, and where are people going to go? Are they going to go somewhere where they offer 10 per cent or 15 per cent? We know the answer to that.
There is a lot to say on this issue. I was gagged from my 15 minutes of fame to speak on behalf of my community. I feel so passionately about this. I am so angry about this decision. But I will give other speakers the opportunity to have their say.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (17:55): Firstly, I would like to pass on my thanks to my colleagues in this place who have agreed to make shorter statements to the House so that more of us could speak on this important matter, the passenger movement charge amendment bill. I also want to speak about and point out the disgraceful lack of governance and process that we are seeing here today—not just today; it has been going on for months, both since the Abbott government first came into power but also since we came back to this place as recently as August. But I want to turn to the backpacker tax itself.
Without any industry consultation or modelling, 16 months ago this government decided to whack a tax on backpackers in what was a disgraceful $540 million tax grab. It did so without considering the fact that the number of backpackers visiting Australia is already falling, and the tax would only make the matter worse. As the member for Solomon said, in the Top End the rates have gone down some 30 per cent in a great part of this country that has extraordinary development opportunities. It has many opportunities to grow. To have this workforce suddenly basically ripped out from the farmers in the area is nothing short of a national disgrace.
As we have heard, there has been no modelling done on this backpacker tax or where it might end. 'Where has evidence-based policy making gone?' I ask the members of the House. It just gets plucked out of nowhere, and here we are. In the 16 months since the 2015 budget we might have thought we could trust the government to have thought through the implications. But clearly that is not the case, and it is never going to be the case. It is a shambolic mess and it is shameful governance, and this country deserves better.
We have heard from many as to what working holiday-makers do when they come to Australia: they harvest crops; they pack fruit and vegetables; they work in processing animal products; they work in fishing and pearling industries; they tend plantations and forestry areas; they work in residential and non-residential building construction. In my electorate they work in the service industry and hospitality. They also work in the tourism industry—cafes and so forth—and even in the health industries. Many of them work in aged care. These are not all the areas. We know working holiday-makers work throughout our economy.
One of the main reasons we have seen the backpacker numbers fall is international competition. This is where the modelling problem comes in. We have our near neighbours, New Zealand—a beautiful country, as the members Paterson has pointed out—which has a 10 per cent rate for working holiday-makers. 'How are we meant to compete with that?' I ask my friends here today.
I will take a few moments to talk about the impact on Brand. Brand is a southern metropolitan area in the south-west of the Perth metropolitan area. It is not a regional area. It borders on a regional area. In my electorate on the Kwinana industrial strip stands the largest grain exporting and handling facility in the nation. From CBH's silos WA wheat farmers export their crops. Some of the best grain in the world goes direct to Indonesia. It feeds our near neighbours. They are operating in an increasingly competitive environment, and growers' ability to access markets decreases with every dollar added to cost. They also depend on backpackers in wheat silos across the state—people who come for seasonal work to lab test, to collect, to do all the testing that is required on the great grain crop of Western Australia.
Not only wheat farmers but all Australian agriculture must be able to compete on a level playing field with like countries such as, as I said, our near neighbours, New Zealand. We rely on the labour that is essential to seasonal work. What I can say about this government—and we have seen it consistently—is that it is consistently incompetent. It is a shame, with this being my first time in parliament, to have to witness it firsthand, but I am glad I am here to hold them accountable.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (18:00): I would like to thank members who have contributed to this debate and thank the opposition for their cooperation in the management of the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 through this House. As part of these reforms, the government has increased the passenger movement charge to $60 from 1 July 2017. This increase is the first increase since 2012 and is in line with changes in the consumer price index between this time and 2017. During the debate in the Senate on this measure, the government committed to not increase the $60 rate of the passenger movement charge for a minimum period of five years from 1 July 2017, and this bill gives effect to this commitment.
I note, on the amendment moved by the opposition, that they make a number of observations but, in particular, they draw attention to the lack of consultation in relation to the passenger movement charge. I simply draw their attention to the words of the former Minister for Tourism Martin Ferguson, who said:
If you actually have a look at the visitation to Australia over the last few years, there were a variety of increases to the passenger movement charge when I was the minister from December 2007 to 2013.
It was increased from $37.55, from memory. He said:
I can assure you there was little or no consultation—
In relation to those changes. That was the confession of the Labor minister for tourism on those matters. So I note the amendment moved by the opposition. It is what it is: another opportunity to play politics with this matter. This legislation needs to go through and be passed, and that will ensure certainty for the tourism industry and the agricultural sector. I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
The House divided [18:06]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (18:14): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
The House divided. [18:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (18:19): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (18:19): Last night when I was speaking on this bill, I was drawing attention to the series of reports that have shown the need for reform of the way that life insurance advisers are remunerated. ASIC report 413, Review of retail life insurance advice, identified a strong connection between up-front commissions, policy lapse rates and poor consumer outcomes. ASIC's report found, amongst other things: 45 per cent of the advice provided under an up-front commission model failed to comply with the law; 82 per cent of industry uses an up-front commission model; and up-front commissions for advisers are generally between 100 and 130 per cent of the product premium. More recently, ASIC report 498, Life insurance claims: an industry review, found: that the rate of declined claims in the industry, as I mentioned last night, was the highest for TPD cover, with an average declined rate of 16 per cent, and for trauma cover, with an average declined rate of 14 per cent, and a considerable variation in declined claims among insurers, with TPD denial rates being as high as 37 per cent for some types of cover. I mean, just think about the effect on families and individuals who have suffered catastrophic injury preventing them from working, and over a third being denied—having their claim on their insurance, that they have been paying premiums on for years and years, declined. It also found that the most common types of life insurance disputes were about the evidence insurers require when assessing claims, including surveillance, and delays in claims handling. And this has got to be one of the most easy insurance types to assess; it is pretty clear when somebody dies.
There were higher claim denial rates in relation to insurance policies sold direct to consumers with no financial advice, compared to policies sold through advisers and group insurance policies. The industry-commissioned Trowbridge review recommended several reforms for adviser remuneration, including a significant reduction in up-front commissions. The Financial System Inquiry recommended the abolition of upfront commissions and a move to level commissions, where the commission remains the same year after year.
I am hopeful that the inquiry of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the insurance industry—and I am a member of that committee—will shine some light on these broader issues in the life insurance industry. The committee has been tasked with reporting on: the need for further reform; an assessment of the relative benefits and risks to consumers of the different elements of the life insurance market; whether entities are engaging in unethical practices to avoid meeting claims; the sales practices of life insurers and brokers; the effectiveness of internal dispute resolution in life insurance; the roles of ASIC and APRA in reform and oversight of this industry; and many related matters. This process will no doubt assist in drawing out more issues required to be addressed to fix life insurance, TPD and income protection insurance industry, as well as financial services and banking, generally, and related to them.
Let me be abundantly clear: only a royal commission will get to the bottom of the broader, systemic cultural issues in the banking and financial services sector.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (18:23): Firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Today, the government is delivering on its commitment to better align the interests of consumers and financial firms in the life insurance sector, as announced as part of its response to the Financial System Inquiry.
There is a clear need for improvements to the remuneration structures in the life insurance sector. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's 2014 report, the industry-commission Trowbridge report and, of course, the Financial System Inquiry all raised concerns around the link between upfront commissions, poor consumer outcomes and alarming levels of poor-quality advice. Given that life insurance is a key product through which consumers manage risk for themselves and for their families, it is important that these issues are addressed. The government wants a sustainable life insurance industry that provides good-quality advice and prioritises the needs of consumers.
Remuneration structures should not work against these important goals. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, otherwise known as ASIC, as part of its 2014 review into the life insurance advice sector found that of the 202 files it reviewed where the adviser was paid under an upfront commission model the pass rate was 55 per cent, with a 45 per cent fail rate—that is, 45 per cent did not meet the legal minimum for the quality of financial advice. Where the adviser was paid under another commission structure, the pass rate was 93 per cent, with a seven per cent fail rate. This is particularly concerning as upfront commission arrangements are the dominant remuneration arrangement in the life insurance sector, covering 82 per cent of advisers. It is not uncommon for upfront commission models to pay 100 to 130 per cent of a new business premium to an adviser, along with ongoing commissions of around 10 per cent.
The changes in this bill will remove the current exemption in the Corporations Act from the ban on conflicted remuneration for commissions paid for selling life risk insurance products outside of superannuation. This bill will also enable ASIC to determine the acceptable benefits payable in relation to these products. An ASIC instrument will set the maximum commission amount for certain life risk insurance products. Payments that are equal to or below these amounts will not be considered conflicted remuneration. ASIC will have the ability to set maximum permissible upfront commissions and maximum permissible ongoing commissions. Given the evidence of the strong link between upfront commissions and poor consumer outcomes, these changes seek to better align firm incentives with consumer interests by capping commissions provided in the first year of premium while still allowing for other remuneration structures in the sector. Reflecting this, the bill does not prevent insurers from paying level commissions, with no maximum cap in place under this remuneration structure.
Another major feature of this bill relates to clawback arrangements. Existing clawback arrangements across the industry are not uniform and typically only apply in the first year of the premium. This piecemeal approach has not proven effective at limiting inappropriate product replacement, otherwise known as churn. Reducing policy churn is a major objective of the government's reforms. The clawback requirements introduced by this bill are essential to addressing this problem. Clawback will occur in the first two years of a policy where the product is cancelled or the sum insured decreases, subject to limited exemptions. ASIC will have the ability in its instrument to determine how much is required to be clawed back from life risk insurers each year. The clawback arrangements will only apply when an adviser is remunerated on an upfront commission basis.
The bill also enables regulations to prescribe circumstances in which benefits paid in relation to life insurance are conflicted remuneration. The intention of this regulation-making power is to ensure that all life insurance distribution channels are treated equally under the law and to maintain the integrity of the reforms by providing a flexible mechanism to address avoidance mechanisms in the future.
Of course, the government recognises that the life insurance sector is vital for our community, providing important financial security to Australians when they need it most. That is why the changes include a three-stage transition period to give advisers time to adjust their business models to the new regime. In addition, the clawback period has also been reduced to two years, down from the three-year clawback period originally proposed. The government has also amended the start date of the reforms to 1 January 2018 to ensure that all advisers are treated equally under the reform package, with no specific grandfathering arrangements for any particular group of advisers. This is, effectively, bringing forward the reforms because the reforms apply to all advisers sooner. The government acknowledges that some advisers may experience difficulty in adjusting, but the long-term benefits will make the change worthwhile. These reforms are necessary to make the industry more sustainable.
This bill is just one part of the government's broader work to help improve consumer outcomes in this sector. The government is also lifting the professional standards of financial advisers across the board. Raising standards will deliver better-quality advice in this industry and more broadly in the financial services sector.
The government will monitor the effect of these reforms. ASIC will conduct a review in 2021 to assess the quality of life insurance advice provided to consumers in light of the reforms. If the review does not identify significant improvement, the government will move to mandate level commissions, as was recommended by the financial system inquiry.
Access to appropriate life insurance products is in the long-term interests of Australian consumers. This bill, and the government's package of reforms, will fundamentally shift the industry to better align commercial incentives with the interests of consumers and make the life insurance industry more sustainable. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (18:31): by leave—I move:
That this be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (18:31): I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, a bill that I think is very poorly named because it has the word 'reform' in it. What we are talking about in this proposed legislation is by no means reform. Indeed, this bill contains two substantive provisions, with some licence conditions for local programming obligations, but fundamentally this should be about a piece of housekeeping to deregulate a section of the Broadcasting Services Act dealing with the 75 per cent audience reach rule. That is a provision that could have been done at the beginning of the first term of this Abbot-Turnbull government. It could have gone through as part of a statute update, for example. It certainly is not something that should be classified as reform.
I will detail the substantive changes that are proposed. The 75 per cent reach rule prohibits a person from being in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences for which the total population exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population. As Labor has made very clear—not only since this bill was first introduced but since it was subsequently introduced, following its lapse at the time of the election—we support removal of this rule, because it is utterly redundant. We already have a situation in place where streaming occurs and where we have more than 75 per cent of the population being covered. It is a rule that is out of date and should go.
However, Labor has made it very clear that we remain to be convinced of the merits of repealing the other rule. I rise here to reaffirm what Labor senators said in their dissenting report to the Senate committee, which is that we are unconvinced that the two-out-of-three rule—the cross-media ownership restriction that prohibits mergers of more than two of three regulated media platforms; that is, TV, radio and associated newspapers in a particular licence area—should be repealed.
As I said, Labor has strongly indicated its support for the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. It was, in fact, a Labor proposal to remove this now-redundant rule. The primary argument in favour of repealing the second rule, the two-out-of-three rule, is that there has been a rise in online sources that can compete for both news and advertising revenue. I must say, the argument about the impact and forecast decline of traditional media is one that is absolutely there, but one that must be taken with extreme caution. This notion that the internet and technological developments have negated the need for Australia to maintain rules around the ownership and control of broadcasting licensees in order to satisfy the objects of diversity in the Broadcasting Services Act is one that does not necessarily follow.
I note, in particular—and I will articulate this in my later comments—this notion of 'because internet': 'because internet' we do not need to have these rules in place and 'because internet' we have everyone capable of accessing these services. There are two things here. For a start, I hate to break it to this government, but unfortunately in certain areas of Australia—we know there is a digital divide not only between regional and metropolitan areas but certainly within metro areas themselves—you would be hard pressed to find Australians who are satisfied with the quality of their broadband service. That is even borne out by the latest statistics of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. I see my friend the member for Burt is in the chamber. Having been to his electorate recently and seen the number of residents who have absolutely no internet access whatsoever and are not even on the rollout map for the NBN, I have to ask myself whether reliance on that notion of 'because internet' is simply a fallacy.
I note that the minister has accused anyone opposed to the repeal of these two rules of being an 'analog warrior' whose views reflect emotion rather than reason. I note that the minister has rejected the need to review any further evidence and asserted that the debate is over in this area and that no further consideration of issues is required. It would be useful for the minister to reflect—as I will come to—on his comments that were made as late as yesterday on this area and on the fact that, if this was supposed to be about landmark reform, he has run away from it at a hundred miles an hour. He has absolutely run away from it.
As my colleague the member for Whitlam has also said, it is entirely within the remit of this parliament and entirely within the capability of this chamber to rid ourselves of the 75 per cent reach rule before Christmas. We could rise from this place giving regional broadcasters precisely what they have been asking for for so many years—that is, we could get rid of a redundant rule that is inhibiting them. But it is to the utter disgrace of this minister that he has not only rejected the notion of doing that but he has walked away completely from true media reform. I note also some of the comments that have, as I said, categorically dismissed this notion of this bill being concerned with genuine reform.
I have seen a few comments from the minister alluding to him working with Labor. There were some quite nice comments about working productively with me. I do not know what he has been telling his stakeholders but I can tell you this: this minister has not picked up the phone once to me to discuss the substantive issues in this bill. I do not know what he is been telling stakeholders but I can tell you there has been no substantive discussion about the items in this bill. Maybe he has discussed it with others, maybe with former Senator Conroy, who knows? But he has certainly not discussed them with me.
So inept is this minister that, as I will highlight, he has talked about all the relevant facts being known; no other facts need to be known. I think the minister should acquaint himself with some of the facts that should be examined as part of this bill—things like the high level of concentration in Australia's media sector and also the views of Australians about this issue. I have heard from many stakeholders that Australians 'do not really care about this stuff'. As I will demonstrate, Australians do care about the diversity of voices, they care about Australian voices being heard and they care about the ability to be able to access those voices and to have the connectivity to do just that. But so inept is this minister that even yesterday we had Jack Mitchell in The Australian say:
The Turnbull government is considering reviewing the anti-siphoning list to win industry support and deliver genuine reform of decades-old ownership and control laws.
Does that not just say it all, 'deliver some genuine reform'? Because what we have in this bill is not reform at all.
Free-to-air network television licence fees are also expected to be addressed in conjunction with the media reform bill as Communications Minister Mitch Fifield adopts a rejigged approach amid resistance to the current proposal.
If you start looking at licence fees and other issues to be addressed in conjunction with the items in this bill, what you are actually talking about is holistic reform of the sector, which, blow me over, is what I have been saying for months. It is what I would have been happy to discuss with the minister months ago. But the minister was so dismissive of this from the outset and now today, all of a sudden, holistic reform is the order of the day. I Know imitation is supposed to be the best form of flattery but this is just beyond ridiculous from the minister who is clearly out of his depth, who lacks passion for this portfolio and who simply does not know what he is doing in this vital area of media ownership rules.
The article in The Australian yesterday said:
Dealing with media ownership rules, licence fees and anti-siphoning at the same time would deliver wins for the industry, some observers believe, and progress for the government as it seeks to implement its legislative agenda.
Again, this is exactly what I proposed from the outset. All of a sudden, this minister has realised that you cannot just take one piece of the jigsaw in the converged media and communications landscape, fiddle with it and then think it will fit back and that everything will be hunky-dory. This is a minister who also had this bill on his list of the 20-point plan when this government came in. Now he has thrown up the white flag as reported last week in TheWest Australian and we have the headline 'Media law reforms on the backburner'—completely given up. But of course that would not stop him. The article said, 'He blamed Labor for the hold up.'
This government has been in power since 2013. What has it done in this area? It could have completed probably the most thorough review of the broadcasting sector. The last thorough one was in around 2000 by the Productivity Commission and actually had a strong evidence base for holistic review of the sector and corresponding legislative and regulatory reform, not to mention getting to work on some converged regulation and converged legislation in this area. But no, none of that happened under former communications minister Turnbull. We are certainly not going to see anything happen as this parliamentary year draws to a close from the current minister but we will wait and see.
As I quoted from The Australian earlier, the government is giving consideration to further reductions in licence fees in conjunction with other reforms including spectrum pricing. I wonder who has been advocating for licence fees and spectrum reform from the outset? Again, as part of a holistic package, this is exactly what Labor has been proposing. I note also in this article from The West Australian last week:
Senator Fifield maintained that he would not split the package into two Bills so the Government could chalk up a win on the abolition of the ritual.
He said:
It is extremely disappointing that the alternative government cannot see their way clear to help bring our media laws to reflect the world we live in.
To the contrary, it is completely disappointing that we have a minister here who is not willing to cut regional broadcasters some slack before the end of the year, which was exactly what Labor said we would be prepared to support and his obfuscation means that we will not be able to rise from this place, according to him, with this positive repeal in the bag. I note the comments he made here:
Because of the limited number of sitting days left and Labor's ongoing delay in relation to media reform legislation, it may well be—and probably will be—next year that we can conclude that legislation.
As I said, this government did nothing in three years to address the issue of proper, well thought through, evidence based media reform. It has taken their whole first term, and several months since the last election. We are now here in the dying days of this parliamentary sitting year, with a minister who is inept, who has absolutely rubbished the sensible approach that I suggested from the outset. And now he appears to have not only adopted those views but also, as a highlight, he almost appears to have instructed others—his own people in his own department—to support them. I will demonstrate what I meant by that in a moment.
Here on the opposition side, here in Labor, we are happy to help. We are happy to help deliver a bit of reform before the end of the year to at least give some of those parties, the regional broadcasters, a break in this matter. But I am not surprised that we are not seeing that much from this minister with his ham-fisted approach to media reform. What else have we seen? The spectrum review was kicked off in May 2014—we still do not know what the government is planning to do there. We have the ACMA review announced in June 2015; there is still no final report. We have the Vertigan review—its terms of reference were announced in December 2013—that is still doing the rounds.
I go to the substantive issue of what should have been applied, the frame, the whole prism of regulatory review that should have applied from the outset. As I said on 10 August this year and was quoted in GuardianAustralia by Katharine Murphy:
Labor says the government needs to undertake a comprehensive examination of the state of the Australian media landscape before rushing to scrap regulations that prevent moguls owning a TV station, radio network and newspaper in the same market.
And:
… Labor had already signalled it would support scrapping the reach rule, given the evidence showed it was a 'redundant' restriction.
But she said scrapping the two-out-of-three rule was much more contentious given the Australian media market remained one of the most concentrated in terms of ownership in the developed world.
Murphy quoted me further:
Seven of the 10 top websites in Australia, she said, were owned by the traditional media companies. 'While they are being delivered on different platforms it is clear the concentration of ownership is still there.'
I again noted:
… Labor was open to dealing with the package in two tranches.
That was on 10 August. On 29 August, the minister quoted in the same publication:
But Fifield has rejected that call—
This is the call for a review of the sector—
and confirmed his intention to bring forward the package. The last thing Australia’s media companies need is another review. It is time for action.
The minister might think it is time for action, but I certainly do not see any action on this front, and it is quite apparent that this minister has suddenly realised the need for holistic reform. He is talking about, for example, reviewing some of the regulations around subscription broadcasting. I do not know where this guy has been, but on 5 September, when asked by The Financial Review about the current regime and how it works, I pointed out that the anti-siphoning regime, as it currently stands, is already being circumvented. One day Netflix will go—maybe in the not too distant future, who knows—to a sporting code with a blank cheque and these cashed-up over-the-top operators will say, 'How much do you want?'
We have already seen telecommunications carriers going more and more into the content provision space. See, for example, Optus in the English Premier League. We recently had Twitter streaming Melbourne Cup delivery this year. But these are not on-the-horizon issues; these are issues here and now that need to be addressed. The fact is that it is entirely possible for these operators to circumvent the current anti-siphoning regime, which has been put in there for a very good reason, but it is perfectly capable of being circumvented by these firms that are not subject to the regime. I note the minister, yesterday, quoted as being ready to start looking at some of these issues. But from the outset, he is showing absolutely no interest whatsoever.
It is a fact that the pragmatic course of action that should be taken by this parliament is to repeal the reach rule. I note, also, that I have advocated for the execution of a sound principles based policy, which I will come back to it in just a moment. To the issue of holistic media reform; this should not have been news to the minister. He should not have had any problem signing up to, because it has been very clear from the submissions and evidence from industry stakeholders to the Senate, on more than one occasion, that this is exactly what they have been asking for. Foxtel is:
… strongly opposed to repeal of any media control rules in isolation. Therefore, we do not support passage of the bill at this time.
As set out below, we believe reform must be holistic and provide for de-regulation across sectors …
It goes on:
Hasn't the government always talked about taking a holistic approach to things like this, and it sounds like they're not going to. We'll continue to encourage them to do the right thing.
It goes on:
Seven West Media has maintained a consistent position in relation to any proposed changes to media laws. We see great danger in addressing these matters in a piecemeal manner.
And Nine:
… we understand the need for the proposed changes of repealing the 75 per cent reach rule and … more broadly as part of holistic reform. Incremental changes will not bring about the reform required for the ongoing viability of our industry.
It said: 'There are parameters under which, I would say, holistic media reform needs to be considered, and we need to look at the whole industry's part in how that public policy objective is maintained.' And so it goes on.
I will highlight one of the minister's more curious assertions in the months since this bill was reintroduced to the parliament, and I look at the headline from The Sydney Morning Herald from 10 August this year: 'Labor will be putting jobs at risk if it blocks media ownership changes.' Firstly, amongst other things, the notion that mergers and acquisitions do not lead to job losses is one which I think would be hotly disputed. But as he goes on, I quote the minister telling Fairfax Media:
The last thing Australia's media companies need right now is another review—it is time for action.
All the relevant facts are already known.
Labor's out of touch with the needs of the media sector and does not seem to care about the jobs that are at risk.
… … …
The legislation will be put back before the parliament as a priority and as a package.
It is curious, then, to examine one notable merger. For example, on 12 September this year The Australian had the headline 'ARM takeover spurs back-office cuts' and the article stated:
News Corp's planned acquisition of APN News & Media's Australian Regional Media newspaper business will result in up to 300 job losses as back office synergies are sought to secure the future of quality journalism in the affected regions.
The cuts are expected to be implemented over an initial phase, provided the deal is approved by shareholders and the competition watchdog …
It is not surprising to me that last week, even in The Australian, Mark Day commented:
The end-of-the-year awards season is almost here but there's already an odds-on favourite for the title of the most ineffective politician in the land.
Take a bow Mitch Fifield, the Homer Simpson of the Turnbull government. He has been the Minister for Communications and the Arts since September last year and—
here is the important bit—
he's just discovered the need for widespread reform of media regulation.
It is quite telling that we have the minister described in those terms. Not only has the minister has changed his position on this matter and how we should approach the prism through which we should approach media reform in this country; it appears he has not been capable of having an original thought up to this point. I will give you an example.
On 5 October this year, I made a speech to the Commsday Melbourne Congress and I set out the principles that I believe should be applied to communications policymaking in Australia, and I highlighted those principles and challenges and summarised them in three parts: firstly, piecemeal policy is poor policy; secondly, the legacy world must be confronted; and, thirdly, consumers must be at the policy core. I particularly noted some of the issues arising from this media reform bill and stated:
traditional media outlets continue to dominate the production and dissemination of news in Australia
… … …
any amendment to current cross-media ownership restrictions must ensure that diversity of Australian voices; and
an evidence-based approach is critical, especially considering there has not been a comprehensive inquiry into ownership, concentration and competition in the sector since the late 1990s …
I was therefore quite surprised—though pleasantly surprised when these things happen—to see on 24 November the secretary of the minister's department, in a speech to the Institute of Public Administration Australia's Secretary Series, making the following comment:
That is in essence what Minister Fifield has asked us to begin work on—to think about a communications policy roadmap centred on a principles-based framework for communications policy. This roadmap will be the first look at the overall policy framework in nearly 20 years, since the introduction of competition into telecommunications in the late 1990s.
Well, blow me over, if you do not see your own words coming to you from the secretary of the department via, of course, a minister—'This is what Minister Fifield has asked us to begin work on.' I am happy to help out, but the sheer fact is this minister, being so incapable of understanding the entire media landscape and the need for a holistic approach to this area, is instead offering us piecemeal legislative change somehow disguised as reform—as my mother would have said, 'mutton done up as lamb'—yet comes to this parliament and argues that it is urgent when this government has done sweet nothing for the last three years. Not only has he gone out and rubbished what Labor has sensibly proposed; now he seems to want to adopt it as his own. I think it is useful to highlight how it got to this point.
Of course it got here because in June 2015, effectively, the Abbott government at the time killed off plans to put media ownership on the political agenda, as The Australian wrote 18 June 2015:
… after the leadership group of the inner cabinet decided against the move to avoid a fight with the main players.
… … …
'They are completely off the table', a source said. 'There will be no reform package any time in the foreseeable future.'
This is a government which not only has been scared of looking at this issue through a principles-based framework and put it off for so long; it is also ignoring the evidence.
In the time I have I want to highlight some of the evidence which demonstrates why it is important to maintain diversity, as set out in the Broadcasting Services Act and specifically the two-out-of-three rule. This argument of 'because internet' simply does not cut it. If you look at the Nielsen digital ratings, you will see seven of the top 10 sites are old Australian media just on different platforms—the same voices. In response to some of the stakeholders whom I have heard say, 'No-one cares about this; you can get rid of this set of rules and no-one will care,' I note that in September this year, we had a poll from Essential Poll looking at media laws and this question was put:
Would you approve or disapprove of changing the media laws to allow a single company to own all three of a newspaper, TV network and radio station in a single market?
The response to the question was total disapprove 61 per cent and total approve a mere 18 per cent. I believe this is an issue that is important to the Australian people. I believe this is an issue that should be examined in terms of the amount of media concentration that we already have. It is the fact that media concentration has been of enduring concern to the public and it has certainly been one that has prompted government to act and to put regulations and appropriate safeguards in place, even since the 1930s.
I have heard the minister trying to denigrate me as being stuck in the eighties and saying, 'These rules were conceived when Kylie Minogue was still running around on Ramsay Street.' Well, there are two points there. Firstly, the 1980s were pretty good. Any decade that contained Bon Jovi at their height was a good decade. But I would also point out, just as Paul Keating reflected in 2000 on these rules:
The technology might be complicated, but the issues are simple. Public policy should be directed towards promoting diversity and preventing any further concentration of media power. The result might be some arguable economic inefficiencies around the edges, but the Australian polity will be healthier. The principal objective has to be diversity. And the only way to get it is competition. That alone.
He goes on to say—and this is prophetic, since he was making these comments in 2000:
The last Labor Government's policy approach to the need to prevent concentration and encourage diversity was the cross-media rules. These limit owners broadly to either print or radio or television.
The question now is whether digital technology, which enables all forms of content to be delivered in similar ways, makes these rules out of date. I think this argument is greatly overstated by the government and the existing media owners.
The rules in Australia do not prevent any proprietor getting into new media.
He goes on:
In any case, the rationale given by those who argue for the ditching of the cross-media rules—that convergence is turning all forms of media into one—is the most powerful reason for not making it easier to concentrate ownership.
As Labor has consistently said, we have made our policy position known. It is based on the evidence, and the evidence is clear that Australians are concerned about these issues; that now is not the time to be ditching these important provisions; and that the Australian people respect diversity and want it preserved.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (19:01): It is good to talk on this bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016. I have to say that the position of the opposition on this bill is absolutely absurd. It is just lacking in any logic and any sensible rationale and it would simply seek to crystallise the Australian media industry and freeze it as if it were 1987. It is not 1987 and it is an absurd position that the opposition are taking, and they should be ashamed of it.
Let us get to the crux of this issue in relation to the so-called two-out-of-three rule. At the moment, due to rules that have existed for decades and are now massively outdated, a media proprietor in a particular market can own two out of three of the platforms of newspaper, radio and television but is not able to own all three. So what part of this package would seek to do is change that rule to create the capacity for further mergers in this sector. It is really important to understand that the fact that the two-out-of-three rule is removed does not automatically mean that mergers can occur, because we still of course have a thing called the ACCC.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you well know, the ACCC will run the ruler over any proposed transaction, certainly including the media sector. If the two-out-of-three rule is no longer there, the ACCC will still look at each and every transaction and ask, 'Is this appropriate? Does this lead to an inappropriate concentration of market power?' If the answer is yes, they will say that the merger cannot proceed. We also have a diversity rule in media which basically requires that there are numerous voices in different markets, particularly in the radio sector. So the diversity rule absolutely remains and the ACCC remains.
The opposition is basically saying that no company should be allowed to even put a proposition forward to merge those entities—so no newspaper should be allowed to put forward a proposition to merge with radio and TV. The newspaper industry is not what it used to be. So, on the one hand, we have this quite remarkable situation where the opposition is saying that the newspaper industry is so powerful that it must not be allowed to merge with other media platforms and, on the other hand, newspaper companies all around the world, and certainly in Australia, are on the verge of shutting down their newspapers, because the newspaper business has chronic and likely terminal problems. Those opposite say, 'So powerful; can't be allowed to merge with other entities,' whilst the reality is that these companies are in dire straits and are anything but the powerful entities that they once were. But that does not matter to those opposite, because there is clearly some sort of political agenda here. Whether it is some sort of a grudge that those opposite or predecessors of theirs in the communications portfolio hold, I do not know, but it is a ridiculous proposition.
It is worth noting that, under the current rules, one company could own Facebook, Google and every other website in Australia—thereby having immense power and reach—but not have any problem under the two-out-of-three rule. That would actually be okay under the two-out-of-three rule. But if a newspaper company that is perhaps in the process of shutting down its newspapers because they are not doing so well wished to partner with a radio station and a TV station in a particular market, those opposite say, 'No, we can't allow that to happen.' They cannot allow that to happen, but they have no objection to one entity basically owning everything online. It was also interesting that the previous speaker, the shadow minister, talked about how seven out of the top 10 digital sites are owned by traditional media companies, but she neglected to mention that No. 1 and No. 2, who are dramatically bigger than everyone else, are of course Google and Facebook, which have a far greater reach than any other companies online.
So you do have to wonder why, in 2016, a party which purports to hold itself out as an alternative government, says, 'We cannot allow companies in this industry to put forward proposals to merge.' Proposals will still have to go to the ACCC and will still be subject to the diversity rules that apply in this sector. They say, 'Don't even let them put forward a proposal to the ACCC. Watch them wither on the vine, with the attendant job losses that will occur'—and they will occur, and I do not think anybody who follows this sector would disagree with that. Let them wither on the vine; let them wither away; do not let them put forward constructive proposals to make their businesses more viable, even though those proposals would still be subject to ACCC approval. That is just an absurd proposition. It is a completely ridiculous proposition and it is not befitting a fringe group, let alone a group who purport to be an alternative government.
We should also address the 75 per cent rule, which is contained by this bill. It is good that the opposition do support the abolition of the 75 per cent rule—though it is bad and ridiculous that they do not support the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule. To explain the 75 per cent rule, this is a strange rule indeed. Basically, at the moment no one entity can own free-to-air television stations that reach more than 75 per cent of the Australian population. That is why, in the Australian television industry, we have, basically, two types of companies. We have the metropolitan broadcasters, Seven, Nine and Ten, and then in regional markets we have Prime, Southern Cross and WIN. The reason it is structured that way is that it is not possible for either the regional broadcasters or the metropolitan broadcasters to reach more than 75 per cent of the population, so there are basically two entities doing broadly the same thing. Presumably, when the 75 per cent rule was established, the rationale was to limit the reach, so to speak, of any one entity into the television market. Presumably, the idea was that they did not want a particular company being able to reach 100 per cent of the community through TV.
The problem, though, is that it has actually never worked like that. Let me explain why. The free-to-air metropolitan networks all have deals with the regional broadcast networks—Seven and Prime, and now Nine and Southern Cross, and now Ten and WIN. They have deals where they, basically, redistribute their programming. If you have watched regional TV while in Canberra, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I am sure you have on occasion, you will have noticed that the broadcast bears a striking similarity to what you will see on Seven, Nine or Ten. Critically, the national news of Seven, Nine and Ten is broadcast unfiltered and unchanged into those regional markets. So, if the concern of the legislation was to limit the reach of those news stories into regional markets, it has not been very effective. The national story of the day on Nine will be seen in regional markets, and the same applies to Seven and Ten—so they have been reaching 100 per cent of markets the whole time. Of course, regional networks do have some individual regional stories, which is a good thing. Some of them do that simply to comply with the content rules and some of them actually do a great deal more than is required under the content rules. Some of them provide far more local content than they need to under the rules. They do so for commercial reasons. The regionals provide some local news content, but they also redistribute 100 per cent of the content of the main networks, particularly in news, and they might have one or two other shows—maybe a regional fishing show or a couple of other shows—but overwhelmingly it is the same schedule as in the metropolitan market. That has always been the case and it was the case before the internet, so this rule has kind of never made sense, to be honest.
It makes even less sense now because what you can do now—and this is actually happening—is reach 100 per cent of the population with a TV product via the internet. Channel 7, I think, was the first to start doing that, with the broadcast of, effectively, the Seven metropolitan content into regional markets. So 100 per cent of the community can access Channel 7, even in regional markets, and that is okay under the law. Point 1, it is okay to reach 100 per cent through digital distribution. Point 2, even through the distribution on free-to-air spectrum, it is actually okay for programming to reach 100 per cent of the community, because it does and has been doing so for decades. The only thing that is not okay is for 100 per cent of people to be reached via spectrum via the same ownership structure, which again makes no sense because it is already happening through other means.
So it is good that the opposition agrees that this rule should be changed—frankly, this rule should have been changed many years ago—but this is a package because the 75 per cent rule is quite linked to the broader reform of the two-out-of-three rule. The opposition say that a modern media industry in Australia should be stuck in rules that were created under the Keating government. The shadow minister talked in very glowing terms of Mr Keating and even used the term 'prophetic' to describe his pronouncements on this industry, but I am not sure that I would agree that his influence has been quite so other-worldly. This is creating a constrained situation in the Australian media industry and it will lead, and is leading, to reduced activity in the sector and reduced employment. The newspaper sector, for example, is, I think it is fair to say, the most challenged of the three traditional sectors. Barely a day goes by when you do not hear about a newspaper company in the world scaling back operations, laying off staff or shutting down particular versions of their newspaper. The reason they are doing that is, basically, that the economics of the newspaper business do not work very well anymore. They used to work well. They used to be very powerful economics, but what has happened is that the classifieds industry, which for so long was really the linchpin of the revenue streams of newspapers, has gone away pretty much completely. You would be familiar with Seek and Carsales and realestate.com and all those websites, Mr Deputy Speaker. The vast majority of what used to be the foundation of the newspaper industry—those job ads, car ads and housing ads—is gone now and is online. As a consequence—there are other reasons too—the newspaper industry is in immense financial difficulty.
Those opposite say, 'No, let's not let newspaper companies or other media sectors come forward with constructive proposals to build companies that will survive in the current era, companies that will be able to take on those international competitors, companies that will be able to fight against the googles and the facebooks who are making so much headway and taking so much of that market which has traditionally been captured by Australian companies.' Those opposite say; 'No, don't let them react to that. Make them sit there. Make them sit there and, basically, watch as their industry is fundamentally changed by these massive foreign companies who do employ people in Australia but only a small fraction of the number of people who are employed by traditional media companies.' Whatever their political motivation is—I do not fully understand what their motivation is; it is difficult to decipher—they say, 'Don't let Australian companies come up with proposals to take on Google. Don't let Australian companies come up with proposals to create structures that will enable them to compete in the future with these very aggressive and very successful search and social media platforms.' That is, as I said, a ridiculous proposition.
The 75 per cent rule and the associated changes in this legislation will include even further improvements to regional content rules in the television industry. They are already very strong, but they will be even stronger under this package of reforms. This is a reform that means regional Australia will get quality media services into the future because they will be allowed to have structures that work in a business sense. Those opposite say, 'Don't let them. Let them wither on the vine. Let the foreign websites come in and take over without allowing a fair fight from the domestic media companies.' It is absolutely wrong, and the opposition should support this legislation.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (19:17): I rise this evening to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, which calls for a relaxation of media ownership laws in Australia to meet the needs of a changing marketplace. We understand it is a changing marketplace. Despite strategies by various governments over the past decades, Australia has one of the most concentrated media environments in the world. But in recent years the media landscape has changed, and it continues to change.
Traditional media operators—television, radio and newspapers—have protested that the majority of government regulations now no longer fit the changed landscape. They say the conditions are onerous and have not just restricted their business but stifled their business Since the advent of the internet, with greater diversity of sources, diversity of voices and innovative practices, traditional media say they can no longer compete. They argue that the removal of these rules is necessary for their survival, and it is a compelling argument. We have seen job losses throughout all sectors of the media, and those losses have, in turn, impacted on their and our communities. Despite the freedoms of the internet, many of us still place great faith in traditional and established media outlets. We trust them for our news; in fact, they are one of the first things we turn to when we have learnt that things might go bad. This is especially the case in the regions.
A diversity of ownership means a diversity of voices. In my electorate of Paterson, which crosses the Hunter Valley and Port Stephens, we are fortunate to still have strong, local independent media voices. We have a strong local Fairfax Media newsroom, which produces the Newcastle Herald, Australia's best regional daily newspaper, and a host of other free weekly, bi-weekly and tri-weekly papers throughout the Hunter, each with a focus on unique local content and each with their own websites.
We have a strong local television station in NBN which, although now owned by the Nine Network, still has a strong regional and local focus and covers local events that matter to the community in its remaining hour-long news bulletin, which is so important and informative to our community. We have a strong local ABC radio station in 1233 Newcastle, an award-winning emergency broadcaster and a sound source of news and comment for many people of the Hunter region. We have several other radio networks—Southern Cross Austereo, the Super Radio Network, the University of Newcastle station 2NURFM—all with their own newsrooms that add to the diversity of voices. And we have a multitude of smaller independent newspapers in micro markets that serve their communities very well.
I understand the value of strong local media because I have worked in it as a broadcaster. I have worked in talkback radio, where the discussion of local news and issues is vital to communities and the individuals who make up those communities. I have worked on the radio when bushfires have raged across our area, and I have personally directed people around alternative routes to try and get home safely and be with their loved ones. I understand the regional media market. Strong local and regional media is a vital cornerstone of Australian society, of Australian democracy, and, most importantly, of local stories, the very fabric that keeps us all connected. People in regional and rural communities do not want to see reflected on their TV screens, across their airwaves and in their newspapers only pictures and stories that are generated in big cities, for big cities and about big cities. They want their own stories.
There are tensions and difficulties in the new digital landscape, and it would be foolish and counterproductive to ignore that. Labor does hear the voices of those media outlets who say they are struggling, that the laws are outdated and that they need to merge to survive. But we are also compelled by the strong need for strong independent media, especially in our regions, and we are compelled by the need for a diversity of voices. We are compelled by the ability to hear and tell the stories of the bush, the regional towns and the cities like my own. Labor does not oppose removing the 75 per cent reach rule. It had been Labor's policy to get rid of that anyway, so we are in agreement there, but we are unconvinced that removing the two-out-of-three rule is a good thing. Getting rid of the rule may help create scalable media businesses, but it does nothing to protect and promote the diversity of voices, which are just so critical.
The government says that Labor is holding up media reform by not passing the two-out-of-three rule, but Labor is willing to meet the government. We are willing to meet the government by over halfway—two-thirds of the way, in fact. We will agree to the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. We will agree on improving local content rules. We will agree on reducing licence fees. But we will not agree on removing the two-out-of-three rule. The government has not made the case to remove that rule, and there is, as I have said, a solid argument against it. Removing the two-out-of-three rule risks further concentration of media ownership in a few hands, and that is not something that would be of benefit to regional Australians, particularly those who still need to have their stories told.
Splitting the bill is the pragmatic approach, and it is the one that we have suggested. It will ensure that the government gets some media reforms through the parliament this year. That will be pleasing to the media companies, who can at least say there is some progress towards reform, and pleasing to the people and the communities of rural and regional Australia, who want to ensure their stories continue to be told. We know that this is an important issue.
When these restrictions were put in place in the 1980s and nineties the media landscape did look very different. Now we have a whole range of new players—internet-based players—who have entered the market. It really makes no sense to have the 75 per cent reach rule. We get that. We can get rid of that this year, if the government agrees to split the bill. We can make some progress on that. We can do that right now. The minister cannot continue to hide behind the furphy that the failures of this bill are Labor's fault. They clearly are not. The minister can at least get some reform through by talking to Labor and by splitting the bill.
There have been two Senate inquiries on media reform this year and in both cases the abolition of the 75 per cent reach rule received unqualified support, so there is no argument there. We are meeting you more than halfway on this. The pragmatic course—the sensible thing to do—is to repeal the 75 per cent reach rule, ensuring local content is bolstered following a trigger event and providing immediate licence fee relief to the commercial broadcasters. We agree on that as well. Once the impact of these changes can be assessed, the question of media diversity safeguards should then be considered properly as part of holistic and genuine reform.
The internet has altered the media landscape, but it does not justify discarding important diversity safeguards. Let's be clear and frank about this. Let's not forget about the problems with internet access Australia-wide thanks to the second-rate NBN and its botched rollout.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Ms SWANSON: Not everyone can get the NBN. Not everyone can dip into this feast of internet-based television and internet-based radio. We just cannot get it. That is one of the critical arguments. Everyone says: the internet has made such a difference. It makes a difference if you can actually get it. It is all very well for you to scoff, but if you are spending half your life watching a buffering circle it can be very frustrating. This is particularly so in the most remote areas thanks to the stuff-up—that is all it is—of satellite internet.
Australians support diversity of media. They do not support changing media laws to allow a single controller to own a newspaper, a TV network and a radio station all in the same licence area. Labor must oppose removing the two-out-of-three rule, because it would achieve very little at potentially great cost. Further media consolidation and a reduction in the diversity of voices across the media landscape is not what we need. The parliament must support diversity in the control of our media for the effective functioning of our democracy. The Australian public deserves better than a government that is condemning important media diversity safeguards to the scrap heap in the name of so-called reform.
The media landscape continues to undergo dynamic change. We need a comprehensive vision and the execution of sound principles-based policy to ensure our media laws support both a thriving democracy and a competitive media sector. We will have neither under this government. What we must have are those stories from our local regional area, because they are the stories that truly link people together. They are the stories that build community—and it is through community that a great Australia is built and continued.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (19:27): The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 highlights the forward-looking agenda of the Turnbull government. I do not think I am going to get a chance to finish everything I want to say this evening before the adjournment debate begins, but I do think we need to start by addressing some of the comments that were made before by the previous speaker and, in particular, to highlight the simple absurdity that has been raised here that somehow you need to retain the two-out-of-three rule in order to maintain media diversity.
The previous speaker specifically, and quite rightly, mentioned the fact that we have never lived in a more diverse media environment in this country or around the world. Today you can access—yes, through the internet, but also through lots of other means—technology and information services from all around the globe. The idea that you need to maintain some archaic, anachronistic, 1950s-style model of legislation and regulation to protect diversity fundamentally misunderstands where we are now, where we are going and the wonder and opportunity of what the future holds.
When you look at the challenges we face in the media, they are not around diversity—quite the reverse. The challenges in the media are around integrity and quality and making sure that we have media that has a rigor behind it. The way you are going to achieve that in the 21st century, when the cost of entry is low and there are costs associated with making sure we have quality journalism, quality stories, quality drama, quality programming, is to recognise that business models have to be viable.
By putting unnecessary, archaic and anachronistic restrictions on that you will not achieve the business model we need for Australian media to thrive. It needs to thrive to project stories not just for domestic consumption, which is very important because Australians always need to be able to see themselves and their stories through the media that is projected within our country and our continent, but for the world through a business model that is effective and commercially viable. That is the future of Australia's culture—making sure it is commercially viable, so that we can project that image to the world. It can be a great export sector for this great country.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Oxfam Australia: Straight Talk
Ms LAMB ( Longman ) ( 19:3 0 ): Good evening and 'wunya'. I just said ' hello ' to you in Gubbi Gubbi language, D eputy Sp eaker. Recently , Oxfam Australia's Straight Talk National Summit provided an opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women to connect with our political system and meet with female politicians and each other right here in Parliament House. Eighty women were selected to attend this year ' s program . They come from all walks of life and from all over our country but they have one thing in common: they are passionate about bringing change to their communities.
The program promotes genuine engagement by facilitating small group s of female politicians to sit down with these women, to listen and to learn from their experiences. It give s women the chance to meet face to face with female politicians so they have the opportunity to ask about our political process. But , more importantly, it gives local representatives the chance to hear directly from women about their concerns and how we can help them achieve the hopes that they have for their communities.
As part of this year ' s program, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Tanya Plibersek , and I met with Louisa, Annette, Vera, Keisha and Stella. Many of these women, like me, grew up in North Queensland , and after spending a lot of time with them it was clear to me that we shared a number of the same values and concerns. Annette Simpson is from Brisbane and she spoke about her passion for education. She believes that education is the key to empowerment and self-determination. I know that Tanya and I very strongly believe that quality education is the key to giving Australian child ren the very best start in life. On this side of the House, we share Annette's passion and we will always fight for equality of access to education for every single Australian.
Right a cross my electorate of Longman I have seen first-hand the way in which needs based funding, such as that recommended in the Gonski r eport, provide s genuine opportunity for every child to achieve. Deputy Leader Tanya Plibersek and I had the privilege of visiting Minimbah State School recently. Minimbah State School ha ve innovatively used the extra funding they needed right across the board , and now they are seeing the very best NAPLAN results ever . We really need to ensure that this needs based funding continues so that schools like Minimbah State School continue to prosper.
Keisha McEwan, from Proserpine, Queensland , currently runs a DRUMBEAT program in her local community. The DRUMBEAT program's slogan is 'B uilding resilience through rhythm ' . It is a structured learning program that combines music, psychology and neurobiology to build social and emotional resilience and build healthy relationship skills. The program is delivered across a range of settings. I know that many schools in my electorate have used the DRUMBEAT program.
The other person I would like to introduce is Stella Renagi , whom I met with as well. She is an active member of her Town s ville community . She is a workplace delegate and a dedicated public servant. She ha s been working hard in her local community , where job security is a really big issue. In her region and in my electorate of Longman , we have the unenviable distinction of a really high rate of unemployment. It is vital that we work to provide meaningful employment opportunit ies for residents in regional centres like Townsville and Caboolture. We need to make sure that the se regions are not neglected at the expense of major cities when it comes to spending on things like infrastructure and job creation.
It was a real pleasure to meet these women , and I look forward to working with them and working for them, as they bring about change to their community. This program has been running for six year s now, and I congratulate Oxfam on the work they are doing and on their many, many programs focused on empowering our Indigenous and Pacific women.
Finally, I would like to address an issue that was raised by the women in those meetings, to do with female leadership. In the face of the recent election result in America, it can be disheartening to be reminded that female leaders face many , many obstacles. The path is not always set out for women to lead. As the saying goes , you cannot be what you cannot see. But we are very fortunate in this country. We have got Deputy Leader Tanya Plibersek —she is a tremendous leader. We have also got Linda Burney and Senator McCarthy . They are all wonderful leaders , and so were the women whom I met on that day—l eaders in their communities , t hey are the backbone s of their communities. It is our job in this place to ensure that we hear their voices. It is our job to ensure they become the future leaders of this country . I am incredibly proud that it is the Australian Labor Party that is doing the heavy lifting to advance female representation.
Rickuss, Mr Ian
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (19:35): It gives me great pleasure to stand here tonight in the federal parliament and acknowledge the contribution of all the members not only here but also in our state houses. To serve in public office, to make a contribution to your nation, is an incredibly humbling experience. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to stand at the dispatch box and robustly debate an issue that will hopefully influence the direction of the nation. So too our state colleagues do their very best to influence state outcomes. I have no fewer than four state electorates—probably a few more than four—that sit within the boundaries of my electorate of Wright.
Tonight I want to dedicate this speech to one of my state members. I speak of none other than the state member for Lockyer, Ian Rickuss, who recently announced his intention to retire at the next election. Choosing the door that you want to walk out of after a career is the way I want to go. No-one wants to be beaten at an election. No-one wants to leave this place disgraced. No-one wants to leave for any of the vast number of other reasons that you could leave this place. The way that every politician wants to leave here is with a dignified retirement, and Ian is doing that from the Queensland state parliament.
I want to share with the federal parliament some of his achievements. Ian has served as a state representative for his community since 2004, after defeating the then sitting member, One Nation leader Bill Flynn. Ian is a family man, a farmer and a businessman. He can be a rough nut. He is well connected to his community. He can ruffle feathers. But if he has been there since 2004 whatever he has been doing works. Prior to his life in politics he specialised in intensive horticultural production. He used to export produce to Singapore, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines. During his time in office, Ian has worked diligently to deliver services and improve the local community.
One of the things that he has produced entailed up to $40 million for local highway safety upgrades. As a federal member, I think I have five federal highways that cut through my electorate. With the federal highways that go through my electorate, when it came to the Warrego Highway, Ian had his fingerprints all over it. Ian Rickuss was always my go-to because he knew every intersection. He was that intrinsically and innately connected to his community that if ever there was an accident there was a good chance that he knew the families involved. He was instrumental in organising some funds federally, through Senator Ron Boswell, to build the Plainlands overpass.
He campaigned for new schools to accommodate population growth in the area. As well, he improved facilities for local schools. If you just do a quick calculation with reference to his time in schools, if he has been there since 2004 and we are now in the year 2016, that is 12 years. The kids that started in grade 1 when he started are potentially now voting for him as he approaches retirement. Twelve years of service is an incredible contribution. He ended up putting together $250,000 worth of funding for the Laidley Cultural Centre and, in Gatton, the Lake Apex redevelopment. He has done a heap of things for the community.
I want to talk more about Ian. I said in my opening comments that he was a rough nut and he could ruffle feathers. But he has a heart of gold. He is very robust, but underneath that exterior he is such a compassionate man. I saw that compassion and that softer side of him in the Lockyer Valley floods. He was my go-to. He knew everyone. He knew their background. He knew the parents and their parents, and then he knew their kids' names, he knew their grandfathers and he knew the names of the properties that they had come from. You cannot buy that corporate knowledge. There is no book in any district that harbours that, other than the phonebook—and even that is not going to give you pedigrees.
In that regard, I saw a softer side to him, and no softer side of Ian would you see than in his love, his commitment and his dedication to his family. Ann, his wife, was a stalwart. When Ian was away serving in state parliament she would often stand in for him at functions. With his love and his commitment for his children—and now, in particular, for his grandchildren—I wish him all the best in retirement, whenever he chooses to go.
Indi Electorate: Wodonga
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (19:40): Tonight I would like to honour and acknowledge the people of the major town of Wodonga, in my electorate of Indi. My connection with Wodonga goes back a long way, and tonight I would briefly like to talk about my personal connection with and commitment to this great town, some of the statistics about it, some of the challenges that it faces and also some of the opportunities that it has presented. In talking about Wodonga, I always start with my grandmother. My grandmother was born at the turn of the last century. Her father worked in Australia Post in the olden days, and his job was to get on the train in Wodonga, go down to Melbourne and sort the mail on the way through. One of the fascinating things about having a history that goes back that far is that grandpa would tell stories of the Kelly gang and the things that used to happen in Glenrowan. That was the great-greats.
In a connection closer to my own period, my father was actively involved in the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, when we had the vision of growth that Mr Whitlam outlined for rural and regional Australia—there would actually be investment in these beautiful country centres to see if we could make a go of them. Certainly, the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation and the cities that we have now are huge testament to that vision. I come to this parliament and often wish we could have the same visionary leadership for rural and regional Australia. I grew up in the shadow of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation and the aspirations and the vision and the planning that went with it, and I am now grateful for that work.
Some of the statistics about Wodonga make for interesting reading. It is Victoria's fastest-growing regional centre, with an average growth rate of around two per cent per annum. At 35, the median age is young by Victorian standards. We have 16.5 per cent of the population engaged in manufacturing, so Wodonga still has a really vital, strong manufacturing industry, which it holds onto fiercely. It is a great place to live and it has got a fantastic fight to it.
There are some things that I particularly love about Wodonga. It is right in the heart of the Murray Valley, so it is surrounded by hills. We have the beautiful Murray River and the Wodonga Creek running through it. We have the Hume Weir. We have opportunities for bike riding, horseriding and walking. There is no shortage of things to do, including at the Hume Weir and in surrounding towns. There are fantastic services. Service clubs are strong and vibrant. There are neighbourhood houses in most of the communities. There are active churches. There are so many groups for people to participate in. There are great sporting facilities. We have access to international, state and local transport through the Albury Airport and the Hume Highway and by the train line that goes right through the area.
But Wodonga is not without its challenges, I have to say. One of the big issues that we are looking at is the need for long-term jobs to keep Albury-Wodonga's manufacturing growing. We really need to look long term at how we get the specialist jobs and the people with the specialist skills to come and live in regional Australia. There is an interesting statistic: health services say that 70 per cent of the jobs in Albury Wodonga Health require a tertiary education. But we do not provide that education locally, so we have to get them from Melbourne or Sydney or Adelaide. One of the huge things we have to do is make sure that in the regions we have higher education opportunities that provide specialist professions. Many people do not want to go away to the cities. They actually want to stay locally and get the training that we can provide. We have the two universities—La Trobe and CSU—and we have TAFE, but we just do not seem to have the critical mass to provide all the workforce that we need.
Another big area is sports development. As the population continues to grow, we have got to do work with Baranduda Fields. We have got to actually grow large-scale sporting facilities in the new communities. Wodonga racing club is working on developing its facilities, and it needs support.
But it is rail infrastructure—the train that goes between Melbourne and Sydney—that really needs work, and not only V/Line, the train, but also the railway. ARTC has huge problems with that track.
In closing, I would like tonight to particularly congratulate the leadership team that runs Wodonga: our mayor, Anna Speedie—congratulations on your election—and Patience Harrington, CEO. You do a fantastic job, and I am very proud to be in this House and represent you, and I am looking forward to addressing these challenges in the coming years, showcasing Wodonga and really helping this community to reach its full potential.
Petition: Halal Certification
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—Chief Nationals Whip) (19:45): I rise tonight to table a petition regarding third party food certification—specifically, halal certification schemes in Australia. I note that the petition, with 2,263 signatures, has been submitted to the Petitions Committee and deemed to be in order. I table the petition.
The petition read as follows—
Document not available at the time of publishing—
From 2,263 citizens
Petition received.
The petition calls on the government to amend the Corporations Act 2001 to ensure that: halal certification is clearly labelled, that costs associated with certification are borne by the certification organisations, and that there is no gender discrimination in workplaces unless the employer is a recognised religious organisation.
The need to have food manufacturers clearly label products that have received third party certification was the very first recommendation to come out of the Senate Economics References Committee's report, Third party certification of food. It is now a year since the report, which had bipartisan support, was tabled, and we are still waiting to see if the very sensible recommendations, including clear labelling, will be implemented. Among other things, the report recommended that the halal certification industry establish a single halal certification authority and a single national registered certified trademark, and that the government, through the department of agriculture, monitor halal certification and become the sole signatory on the government halal certificate.
Two of the issues the Senate inquiry uncovered were the haphazard nature of the industry and the lack of transparency. The inquiry was unable to establish how many halal certifiers were in Australia or how many abattoirs permit halal slaughter. More concerning, the inquiry could not even establish the upper and lower ranges of certification fees.
I am aware, from conversations I have had with meat industry representatives, that halal certifiers are price-gouging abattoirs and it is likely that there is corruption with overseas organisations involved, and they want significant reform to deal with this issue. And the big question: 'Where does the money go?' remains mostly unanswered. This is an important question to which the general public wants an answer.
In the 12 months since the report was tabled, I have had regular inquiries from people in my electorate about the outcome. Every week, I have had constituents wanting to know when the government will take action on those recommendations. And part of the reason there is such interest is the widespread concern that money raised through halal certification could—I say 'could'—be used to fund terrorist organisations or actions that are considered extreme by the community. The Senate inquiry tried to explore this question, without a great deal of success, simply because no-one could show where the money went. I note that the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the body with regulatory responsibility for anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing, told the inquiry they had no information to indicate halal certification was linked to terrorism. But they also said they do not follow the money. The Australian Crime Commission told the inquiry they had not found any direct links between halal certification and terrorism financing, and yet evidence of an indirect link was freely available on the internet, as well as an admission as to why an indirect link was used.
Dr Rateb Jneid, the President of the Islamic Council of Western Australia, wrote in the council's 2013 report, posted on their website but since deleted: 'Halal subcommittee now is functional and income starts coming Alhamdulillah. Our next aim is to expand Halal certification for local and international business insha'Alla.' He goes on to say: 'During the year ICWA has made ongoing donations to Syria because of the difficult civil conditions. The donations were through Al Imdaad charity, to ensure that no recriminations could be directed at ICWA.'
Why would the council be so concerned about recriminations? Perhaps because organisations funded through Al Imdaad, such as Hamas, are listed terrorist organisations. Al Imdaad has supported ISIS and is directly linked to IRFAN, the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy. Although claiming to be a charitable organisation, IRFAN Canada transferred more than $14 million to terrorist organisations, including Hamas.
More recently, in July this year, an Australian citizen was arrested in Singapore on terrorism-related charges. Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff lived in Australia for 14 years and collected the dole while supporting Islamic State on social media, trying to convince fellow Muslims to reject the democratic, secular system that was feeding him in favour of an Islamic caliphate. Shariff started the International Halal Management company and also joined Hizb ut-Tahrir.
The confusing, messy, shadowy industry that is halal certification, with its corruption, bribes and complete lack of transparency and accountability, is the perfect cover for a radical to raise money and engage in terrorist-supporting activity. This is why this petition is a reasonable request—a starting point—and why the Senate report recommendations require urgent action.
In the US from 2001 to 2008, there were 26 cases of charges against not-for-profit charities— (Time expired)
Calwell Electorate: Interfaith Dialogue
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (19:50): I rise today to congratulate two communities in my electorate who have shown great leadership in promoting interfaith dialogue and social cohesion in our local community. I am speaking of the Islamic Community Milli Gorus of the Meadow Heights Mosque, and the new and emerging Chaldean Catholic community.
My most recent visit to the Meadow Heights Mosque was earlier this month at their annual open day. It is an event where members of the broader community are invited to engage with our local Islamic leaders and the mosque's community so that they can learn about the Islamic faith. I want to thank the President of the Islamic Community Milli Gorus Meadow Heights, Mr Hasan Guresen, and Mr Fatih Buyukyazici, president of the youth association, for their tireless efforts and for all the great work that they do in our community, which is all on a voluntary basis.
The mosque open day includes many art and craft stalls, food stalls, cultural activities and guided tours of the mosque. Visitors are invited to ask questions about the Koran, learn more about traditional dress, speak with youth group workers, see how Muslims pray, and feel pretty much part of and connected with the Islamic faith.
As well as this, the Meadow Heights Mosque also puts on its very popular iftar street dinners, which take place during the period of Ramadan. These events show the mosque's dedication to embracing the local community in a real and interactive way, encouraging understanding and fostering interfaith cooperation and social inclusiveness. Its leaders understand that the key to inclusive and social cohesion is to demystify any scepticism towards the Islamic faith. I want to commend them for these efforts.
I also want to commend the fantastic work done by the teachers, students and parents of Ilim College, a school founded by the Islamic community Milli Gorus. Today, it has an enrolment of over 1,500 students. It is a school with the highest of academic outcomes. The Milli Gorus, through its youth and education networks, works very hard to guide our local Muslim youth by providing positive role models and making sure they do not get sidetracked or enticed in the wrong direction.
The Meadow Heights Mosque has always led the way in interfaith dialogue in our local community. It has been a pioneer from its establishment, sharing a common area with our local Catholic church, the Holy Child Parish, in Meadow Heights. The sharing of space between these two places of worship is a first. Both mosque and church co-exist together in a spirit of sharing and goodwill. I am also proud of my broader community for their response to this arrangement. It was embraced from the onset, and it is a reminder that our differences should not divide us. Instead, they can, and should, bring us together.
I would now like to acknowledge the new and emerging Chaldean Catholic community in my electorate. This is a displaced Christian community from Iraq. Its people have come here as refugees under the humanitarian program. It is a highly educated community. In the relatively short time that they have been here, they have built the cathedral of Our Lady Guardian of Plants in Campbellfield and have recently acquired a new premise where they have founded St George's Chapel and Youth Centre in Cooper Street, Campbellfield.
On this past Sunday it was a great honour to have His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove and Lady Cosgrove attend mass at Our Lady Guardian of Plants cathedral. Both their excellencies expressed to me and members of the Chaldean Catholic community how much they enjoyed the service, especially the choir, and the community was in turn honoured beyond words that the Governor-General of Australia shared Advent mass marking the beginning of Christmas with them. The presence of our head of state at the Sunday mass was very special indeed.
During the service, parish priest Father Kamal expressed his gratitude to His Excellency and Lady Cosgrove, but more importantly he expressed his gratitude on behalf of the community for the opportunity Australia has given them to make a new home for themselves here, away from the horrors of war. He said that his community felt very privileged to live in Australia and that, indeed, it would work very hard to become good citizens. Father Kamal and Father Maher lead this community in an exemplary manner.
I am very proud to represent one of Australia's largest Islamic constituencies and, now, to also represent the largest Chaldean Christian constituency. I want to congratulate both communities for the leadership that they show and the hard work that they put in to fostering friendship and inclusiveness in the neighbourhoods of my electorate of Calwell.
Welfare Reform
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (19:55): Tonight, I want to talk about social welfare and the need to reform it. It is an important economic issue, but it is also an important moral issue, as well. As I have noted before, we are fortunate to live in a nation that places a high value on helping those most in need. Caring for those who need it is one of the marks of a civilised society. But our moral obligation, in my view, extends not only to those who need government support but also to those who pay for it.
In 2016-17, social welfare will account for about 41 per cent of real federal government expenditure. The published figure in the budget is a bit lower; it is about 35 per cent. The reason for the discrepancy is that the budget includes the GST transfers to the states as a federal expenditure, which, in my view, is not ideal because it is effectively the states' money passing through the books. If you take out the GST money going to the states, social welfare is 41c in every dollar that the federal government spends. So it is an enormous amount and it is appropriate for us to examine it very carefully.
To put it in context, it is about five times what we spend on education and about six times what we spend on defence. It is 40 times what we spend on immigration. It is 150 times what we spend on the ABC and it is about 800 times what we spend on trade and tourism. So it is a very large amount. If you think about it, if even one per of current welfare spending was obtained inappropriately—through misleading conduct or fraud—that would be about $7 billion over the forward estimates. The volume of that relative to many of the other savings measures we discuss here in Canberra is very large. And that is just one per cent— if one percent was obtained inappropriately, that is $7 billion over the forward estimates.
So it is an important issue, I think, for three reasons. It is a massive cost to the budget. It is clearly not in the interests of anyone to have a culture of intergenerational welfare dependency—most of all those who become in that situation. And, given its size, it is important that there is integrity in the program, as it is by far our largest expenditure.
There are two initiatives of the government in recent times which I think are very noteworthy and to be commended. Firstly, there is the investment approach to welfare that the Minister for Social Services has put in place. Basically, the concept here is to identify at-risk groups who may be likely to fall into a welfare trap, so to speak, early and to take steps to intervene to help make that not happen. Some of the statistics that have come out of that work are very striking. For instance, of the young carers who are currently in the welfare system it is expected that in any year over the next 70 years a minimum of 40 per cent of those 11,000 young carers will be on some sort of income support payment. That is not good for those young carers who no doubt want to pursue employment. It is also an issue that is not good economically for the budget.
There are various other examples as well that the minister has pointed out, but one that I found particularly striking was of young students who are currently at university and receiving income support. In any year over the next 60 years it is estimated that 30 per cent of those students will be in the welfare system in some way—so close to one in three. And that is a very big number.
So the investment approach of identifying those issues early and intervening is to be commended, as is the cashless debit card initiative pursued by the Minister for Human Services. This debit card has seen very positive results in Ceduna and the Kimberley. Apprehensions under the Public Intoxication Act are down 54 percent in Ceduna since the introduction of this card. In East Kimberley, there has been a 28 per cent decrease in callouts to St John Ambulance over the period. It is a very sensible initiative that should be considered to be expanded. This is a very important area for future reform in my view.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notice(s) were given:
Mr Dutton: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to customs, trade descriptions and maritime powers, and for related purposes.
Mr Dutton: to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for related purposes.
Mr Dutton: to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth to enable the repeal of certain provisions of the A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations, and for related purposes.
Mr Broadbent: to move:
(1) the House:
(a) agree with the recommendation of the report of the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests, presented to the House on 28 November 2016, in relation to the request from the Member for Blaxland for a ruling from the House on his claim of parliamentary privilege for material seized by the Australian Federal Police under a search warrant executed on the Department of Parliamentary Services at Parliament House on 24 August 2016; and
(b) rule to uphold the claim of parliamentary privilege by the Member for Blaxland in relation to the material seized under the search warrant; and
(2) the Australian Federal Police be advised of the ruling of the House, and the seized material in the custody of the Clerk of the House be returned to the Member for Blaxland.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ) took the chair at 16:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Lunar New Year
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:00): During the break, many Australians will be celebrating Chinese New Year and Vietnamese Lunar New Year. Parliament will not be sitting at the time, so, even though I am a little early, I would like now to send my best wishes to everyone celebrating Chinese New Year, the Year of the Rooster. The rooster is the 10th sign in the Chinese zodiac and represents resourcefulness and confidence. Chinese New Year is celebrated around the world and throughout Australia. Celebrations include decorations such as flowers, red and gold symbols of good luck, and oranges or mandarins as a sign of luck and prosperity. In addition to decorations, people give each other and children a red envelope which contains money or a gift. Red symbolises happiness, luck, prosperity and success. It is a great time of the year, and the festivals, markets and activities are something enjoyed by the entire community, not only Australians with Chinese background.
In recent years I have enjoyed walking along Beamish Street, Campsie, with lion dancers, while the drumbeat sounds a call to celebrate, and sharing fortune cookies in red envelopes with people of every background. Modern multicultural Australia should give us the opportunity to come together and celebrate every occasion with joy rather than avoid cultural or religious references out of fear. In this spirit, I take great pleasure in wishing every all the best for Chinese New Year, the Year of the Rooster.
Tet festival, or Vietnamese Lunar New Year, is a wonderful time of year in the Vietnamese community. People return to their home towns, families reunite, friends wish each other well, and the community takes a moment to remember and pay respect to ancestors. Just as the Vietnamese community will use this holiday for reflection, they will also use it to turn a fresh leaf for the new year. Whether it is the kids wearing their new clothes, the adults settling debts and arguments, or the family cleansing the house of bad luck, it is a chance to start afresh. The sound and colour of Tet festival celebrations can be shared by all. I also understand that in Sydney during Tet festival there will be a Guinness world record attempt to gather the most people in one place wearing the Vietnamese non la, the signature conical hat.
Modern multicultural Australia should give us this opportunity to celebrate and share every occasion with joy rather than avoid religious or cultural references out of fear. We are lucky to study, live and work alongside Vietnamese Australians, many of whom only came here a generation or two ago with the clothes on their backs but managed to contribute so much so quickly to Australia. As we approach the Year of the Rooster, there will be a chance to take a well-deserved break. In this spirit, I take immense pleasure in wishing everyone a happy Vietnamese New Year.
Wide Bay Electorate: Aged Care
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (16:02): In my maiden speech, I spoke of the challenges we face as a nation with an ageing population which will result in increasing demands on our aged-care sector whilst facing very difficult economic times. I also spoke of my concern regarding the way government is funding residential aged care, particularly in the area of complex care.
Wide Bay has a greater than average aged population, so how government supports aged care is a very important issue for me and my electorate. In the time leading up to and since the election, I have met with many residential aged-care providers in Wide Bay, as well as representatives from their peak industry bodies. I have spent time going behind the scenes in aged-care facilities in Wide Bay, meeting with managers, nurses, carers and residents to gain a deeper understanding of how services are delivered, the challenges the sector faces, and the impacts of government policies on the people they care for. Throughout Wide Bay, many operators—large, small and independent—have told me about their difficulties with changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument that are resulting in local cuts to funding, and these are of great concern to me also. Providers have told me that changes to aged-care funding have already caused cuts to nursing hours.
The elderly in care are amongst the most vulnerable in our community and rely on the dedicated, quality and compassionate care of those who work in the industry. These older Australians are the people who delivered us the lucky country that we enjoy today. These are the Australians who built our roads, hospitals and communities. They built our schools, taught the children, nursed the sick and cared for the vulnerable. Now, in their hour of need, they deserve a world-class aged-care system—the aged-care system they have earned.
The aged-care sector must be appropriately funded so it can continue to provide high-level care for older Australians. Full, proper and responsible care of elderly people is one of my key priorities and a priority that the people of Wide Bay have elected me to act on. I will continue to consult with the providers and work constructively with government to advance the interests of people requiring aged care, particularly while government makes critical decisions in the near future that will affect the sector. I will not stand for any policy by any government that sees a reduction in the quality of care for our older Australians.
Brand Electorate: Community Events
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (16:05): Summer is fast approaching, with the days becoming brighter as they fill with festivities across the electorate of Brand. Thanks to the dedication of community organisations, volunteers and community-minded individuals, a number of fun and celebratory events have been hosted in Brand, taking advantage of the fantastic coastal backdrop and great community spirit that is always on show.
In October the annual Castaways Sculpture Awards continued to raise environmental and recycling awareness through sculptures on public display on the beautiful Rockingham beachfront. I want to thank everyone involved in this event for their continued commitment to bringing art to the beach and to creatively supporting the arts and environmental and sustainability awareness all in one go.
Earlier this month we had the inaugural Rockingham Beach Cup, WA's first beach horse race. Thousands of people lined the sand and foreshore to cheer on the winners in this six-race event. The Rotary Club of Palm Beach deserves huge congratulations for putting together this fantastic two-day event, from the black-tie gala dinner the night before to the auction and the community festival the day after, with performers, art displays, food vendors and the main attraction—horse racing on the beach.
The Rotary marquee was fabulous, as was the cruising yacht club. At the yacht club I was pleased to run into former hockey teammates Rochelle Walstead and Julie Winchester—by the way, happy birthday, Winnie. I also ran into Norma and Barry Walker. Norma was my former German teacher at Safety Bay high. I must say it was fabulous to be able to say a quick wie geht's and guten tag to Norma and Barry.
It was such a successful event. It was only possible thanks to the hard work put in by many people, including but not limited to Rotarians Laurie Smith, the former Mayor of Rockingham, his wife Norma Smith, Michael McCafferty and the Smith family in its entirety.
Looking closer to Christmas now: the Kwinana community will once again host the Kwinana Christmas Carols. This Christmas institution is only possible thanks to the dedication of local music teachers, local schoolchildren and passionate members of this great community. Special mention needs to be made of Amanda Oliver and the Calista Primary School Choir, John Logan and Ruth Alexander, who all give generously of their time and expertise so that the whole local community can participate in and enjoy this musical extravaganza.
The Baldivis community will also be joining in an evening of Christmas cheer with their own community Christmas carols hosted kindly by the Mother Teresa Catholic College. The school staff and the whole student community need to be thanked in advance for their upcoming performances, which I know will be fantastic. I also take this opportunity to think about those in the community who are doing it tough this Christmas. Christmas can be a difficult time for many and there are tireless volunteers who work hard and give their time generously to help those who need a little assistance.
Another celebration is coming up—my mum's 80th birthday. Diana Morris has lived in the most beautiful part of the world in the best electorate in the country for over 50 years. I look forward to celebrating her 80th with neighbours, friends and the community. (Time expired)
Kingaroy Peanut Van
Carr, Mr Dave
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (16:08): Today I would like to congratulate Rob and Chris Patch from Kingaroy, who own the famous Peanut Van, for their business nous and entrepreneurship. The iconic Peanut Van sells 100 tonnes of peanuts grown in the South Burnett each year. Rob and Chris have created a new Kingaroy flavoured peanut product, which will be introduced in IGA stores across Queensland. If the Queensland IGA trials prove successful, Kingaroy flavoured peanuts could eventually go Australia-wide.
The Peanut Van is a great story of a small business doing heavy lifting. In the first year of operation takings were so low that Ruth Davis, the original owner, often only made a few dollars a week. In February 1969 her take-home pay for the entire month was $7.41. For the next eight years, Ruth never even made a basic wage. But Ruth had a vision, which has continued to grow thanks to Rob and Chris Patch, who took over the business in 1999. This new product and vision is testament to hard work and a great Queensland product. Now, Queenslanders will be able to go to their local IGA and grab a bag of one or all of their 10 popular flavoured brands.
The Peanut Van has already secured in excess of 400 tonnes of locally produced peanuts from Crumptons in Kingaroy, and its processing centre now has the capacity to cook and pack five tonnes of Australia's finest peanuts per day. The first IGA shipment was in fact 16.7 tonnes and took about four days to process. Rob, a lifetime peanut farmer who still grows peanuts on the family farm near Kingaroy, said he was very excited about the new range and looked forward to the customers' reactions.
I would also like to congratulate Mr Dave Carr on his 30-year teaching career in Maranoa, and particularly the last 19 years in Warwick. Mr Carr first came to the Southern Downs working at the Murray's Bridge State School. He taught across various Queensland schools before settling down with his wife, Sally, and starting his family. Mr Carr raised four kids, and those children went to both St Mary's College and Assumption College.
Mr Carr has been teaching at St Mary's in Warwick for more than 19 years. Mr Carr was quoted recently in a tribute article to him in the Warwick Daily News, saying that he loves Warwick—the country attitude, the good health and education, and the closeness to the bush and the beach. It is not just what he has contributed to the school; it is the whole Warwick community that has benefited from Dave and his family being in Warwick. Dave has a passion for the Warwick community, being a volunteer during his time in Warwick with Rosies Friends on the Street and being the coach of the Collegians football club and the under-43-kilo football team in Warwick. Above all, Dave has been an outstanding teacher at the school of St Mary's, which has ensured that the children of Warwick have developed into bright, capable young adults.
I wish Dave all the best in his new role—still within Maranoa, back in his home town of Charleville—and I look forward to catching up with Dave out in Charleville.
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Child Care
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (16:11): I rise today in grave concern about the situation of our mothers in the South West Slopes of my region. There is a proposition that is afoot at the moment in accordance with the government's proposed legislation known as the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016. The advice that has been passed on to the service provider of the mobile child-care service Puggles, for those South West Slopes mothers and their young children, is that the potential for them to lose their entire service could result from the formulas that will apply under this legislation. It has been put to them that, unless they increase the number of children that are using the service, funding will be withdrawn. This is a service that operates under the auspices of the Snowy Valleys Council and it supports a number of remote and isolated rural communities in that region, including the Indigenous children of the Brungle settlement, not far from Tumut.
I met with a very concerned group of mothers and the organiser of that service over in Tumut on the weekend, and they are deeply distressed by the prospect of losing this service. This is for children usually at the ages of around three, four and five, who are getting not only very important support for their early learning activities but also assistance in relation to child care support in general. Sheridan Ingold, one of the mothers, said to me: 'Puggles provides a service for our children to thrive and get early intervention and education care where otherwise they would miss out. It also serves as a hub for families to meet and socialise in our small village'—and we are talking about very small settlements and farms. These are mostly farmers' wives that I was talking to. Kylie Wilesmith, who runs the Puggles service, says that well beyond this they effectively provide a social glue service. They sit down and work with families on resolving a whole range of issues other than just providing the support to these children.
We have to have this service. Children in remote and rural areas will definitely benefit and are benefiting from the cognitive development and early learning that is provided to them, giving them those important social and cognitive skills before they go to school. All sorts of studies have proven how important this type of service is. We cannot afford to lose it, and I am warning the government that, if these proposed amendments do result in the loss of a service like this, they will see more bushfires like the Orange by-election bubbling up all over rural and regional New South Wales. We have suffered enough hits from attacks on our education, attacks on our lifestyle through the forced council mergers, the attacks on the TAFEs and the attacks as well, in the forced council mergers, in the management of that process, which is not playing out. We are not going to put up with it. (Time expired)
Groom Electorate: Oakey Beef Exports
Rail
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (16:14): Today I want to inform the chamber of a subject about which I am particularly bullish, and that is that, at seven o'clock this morning, a freight train at Quilpie, in Western Queensland, began to be loaded with some 880 fat bullocks and cows. Freighting livestock in Queensland is not unusual, but in this instance there was added significance to this early morning muster, as these cattle will arrive tomorrow in Oakey, in our electorate of Groom, some 800 kilometres to the east.
This is the first time in 23 years that a train load of cattle from the west will be unloaded at Oakey for processing, and I wish I could be there to stand alongside the 500-odd workers from Oakey Beef Exports and watch history in the making. I take this opportunity therefore, as the federal representative for Groom, to inform the parliament of Australia of yet another success story coming out of the Darling Downs, a region intent on forging its own future through the endeavour and vision of its local leaders.
Oakey Beef Exports general manager Pat Gleeson has been working for many years on putting this plan into action. As an agribusiness professional, local councillor, state agriculture minister and now federal member, I have advocated for this project for many years, given what it means for jobs, the beef industry and other sectors including grain on the Darling Downs.
In my time as agriculture minister, we developed a blueprint for agricultural transport with subsequent budget commitments that would include a focus on the western line and other upgrades down the Toowoomba range towards the Port of Brisbane. In this project, it is expected that reactivation of these rail sidings on the western line will deliver more than 4,300 jobs and about $1.3 billion in economic activity across the region. And credit where credit is due: the current Queensland government has come to the party, proceeding with these planned upgrades at Quilpie and Morven, in the electorate of Maranoa, and of course the all-important Oakey siding, in Groom.
The arrival of this train tomorrow is also the symbolic start of more to come for Oakey Beef Exports. With an imminent $60 million upgrade of the abattoir, that will lead to expansion of its workforce from about 750 people to 1,300 and almost triple its capacity to process beef.
Rail freight will continue to play a central role in bringing goods to market all around our country, with a focus on timeliness, cost-effectiveness and of course improved community safety. That is why I continue to advocate for the vital Melbourne-to-Brisbane inland rail project that means so much to the electorate of Groom as well as the whole eastern seaboard. It is an investment in strategic planning for the future, providing capacity to serve the east coast freight market well into the next century.
Lyons Electorate: Derwent Valley
Working Holiday Maker Program
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:17): During my campaign, I was able to secure funding of $2 million for the construction of a grandstand and associated improvements to Boyer Oval, in the Derwent Valley, but of course only if Labor won the election. Now we all know the results. The coalition won by the barest of margins. But this is not about election results; this is about something more important. People's health and community needs should be at the front line for any politician. I want support and I am seeking support from those on the other side to reconsider this important project, and here is why.
This project is not just about a building. It is not just about improvements for a football club. It is about the heart and soul of a community. It is about social inclusion. In 2011, the Derwent Valley Council area scored 883.8 on the SEIFA index of advantage and disadvantage. The Derwent Valley has the equal fourth-highest rate of relative socioeconomic disadvantage in the state of Tasmania, which of course many would know is itself disadvantaged on the socioeconomic index in comparison to other states. Similarly, the index of economic resources and the index of education and occupation are well below the regional and state averages. The Derwent Valley is third lowest on the index of education and occupation in the state.
In the other chamber, there is an ongoing debate about how best we can arrest youth unemployment. We differ on those issues, but certainly it needs a lot of attention.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:20 to 17:02
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: I have been gagged in the other place, so I am going to change tack. Let's be clear: this 15 per cent backpacker tax represents a gross betrayal of Australia's farmers. The people left hanging from this dirty deal are farmers who need workers, and the businesses and service providers who look forward to backpacker wages being spent in their shops and hotels. Forget the politics and the chest-beating: this decision hurts farmers and regional communities, makes us uncompetitive internationally and heightens the risk of backpackers not coming to Australia to work on farms when they are needed most.
This is not a solution; it is a political fix to get you out of the headlines. You have betrayed regional workers, you have betrayed regional communities—
Mr Hogan: Tell him to make up the shortfall.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): Order! We will just bring the chamber back to order, please. Continue, member for Lyons.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: Labor's priority has been about hitting a tax rate that ensures young people come to Australia instead of places like New Zealand. That is why we settled on a 10.5 per cent tax, because at that rate we remain internationally competitive. The dirty deal that has been struck today is a betrayal of regional Tasmania.
Capricornia Electorate: Clermont
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (17:03): Small communities are the hubs of rural Australia. One community in the far western reaches of my electorate of Capricornia is Clermont. Clermont is a region rich in cattle production and coalmining. Indeed, the Adani Carmichael coalmine planned for Central Queensland is 160 kilometres from the Clermont townships. Next month I will be visiting Clermont. I want to take this opportunity to update the House on some of the funding initiatives that the Turnbull Joyce government has announced to support the people in and around the Clermont region. One of the critical things a regional community needs is water infrastructure. We are providing $225,000 to improve water access from Clermont via Theresa Creek Dam. This is an important boost to the Clermont township. A further major investment from this government is for an upgrade of the notorious Clermont Alpha Road. The Turnbull Joyce government will put a further $6.97 million towards progressively sealing another section of the Clermont Alpha Road under the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program. Using CSIRO research, this program shows that by gradually improving the gravel sections on the road, we can help the Clermont beef industry, improve efficiency and productivity, and, ultimately, save money when it comes to the transportation of cattle to market.
To benefit people living in regional and remote areas, the Liberal-National government offers grants under a scheme called the National Stronger Regions Fund. Several community groups have benefitted from the program at Clermont. The Clermont Rugby League Club received $6,624 to help install an electronic scoreboard at the Clermont Sports Centre. The Blair Athol Recreation Hall Association received $10,317 to help upgrade the Blair Athol Hall. Clermont Kindy and Day Care was awarded an $11,454 grant to build a new play area. Clermont's Wildlife Rescue Service was granted $3,000 to help care for rescued native animals and orphaned joeys. We have also helped deliver to the Clermont Men's Shed a $2,000 grant. As well as this, we have previously provided Clermont Historical Centre with $3,112 for an Anzac Heroes and Heroines exhibition. Clermont's St Joseph Catholic Primary School was awarded a $7,624 grant for a Centenary of Anzac commemorative walkway. To further help business growth in the town, I have placed Clermont at the top of my list in the push for improved mobile coverage under the federal government's Mobile Black Spot Program. I look forward to catching up with representatives from the Clermont Bears and the Blair Athol Recreation Hall Association when I visit Clermont shortly.
Canberra Electorate: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (17:06): Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the community in the gallery from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. They have been very, very patient this afternoon in waiting for me to speak about the fantastic work they do. I want to thank the community here today for being so patient. I do apologise for the divisions—these people have the patience of saints! The fact that they have left school early and left work early to come to listen to this speech makes me feel very honoured and I am very honoured that they are still here. Thank you so much.
I first met Ellen Brown, who is here today, four years ago when she came to meet me at my office in Tuggeranong. She was an energetic and sporty 10-year-old at St John Vianney's Primary School in Waramanga. Our meeting was to discuss what it is like to live as a child with type 1 diabetes. She was a great reminder that, so long as it is managed and so long as it is monitored, diabetes does not have to get in the way of whatever it is you want to achieve. But management and monitoring cost money. The average Canberra family will pay around $20,000 a year in rent, they will pay anywhere between $250 and $25,000 for tuition and they will pay around $11,000 on groceries. The Brown family, as with the other families here—the Eveiles, Rhianna Poole, Casie Griffiths and the Coulters—know that, on top of those daily costs, they also have to pay the cost of an insulin pump, consumables and testing strips. There is the continuous glucose monitoring transmitter, alcohol wipes, sensors and health insurance. Altogether they will pay around $9,000 a year on top of every other cost faced by every other family in Canberra. And it is important that they can afford to do so because the management of diabetes is possible only for as long as it is affordable now and into the future. It is a lifelong autoimmune disease that affects more than 120,000 Australians and it is a common chronic disease in Australian children.
I caught up with these fantastic families in a recent event hosted by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Ellen showed me her insulin pump and helped explain to me how the continuous glucose monitoring works. I got to hear about the challenges that these families face each day in terms of not being able to sleep at night, not being able to relax at night and having to constantly monitor and manage their child's diabetes. So hats off to all of them and hats off to James Eveille, who won the state volunteering award for a young person for the work that he does with his sister. Thank you so much for the contribution you make to our community, to our future generations and also to the foundation. I thank them again for their patience and for being here.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member for her contribution and take the opportunity to acknowledge the members and guests in the dining room and trust that you will enjoy your stay here in the Federation Chamber and in the Australian federal parliament.
Western Australian State Election
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (17:09): The WA state election in March next year will be one of the most important elections in WA for decades. This election will have serious consequences for the WA economy, for jobs and for our future, and every Western Australian will have a clear choice when they stand at the ballot box next year. Colin Barnett, Liza Harvey and the WA Liberals understand WA, and they have a plan to create more jobs, focus on families, continue to fight the scourge of meth, balance the books responsibly and continue to build an even better Western Australia.
In 2008 Colin Barnett and the Liberals were elected after Labor's absolute failure to invest in our economy and communities. Since then the WA Liberal government has created over 98,000 jobs by building critical infrastructure for our state. It has built and upgraded 61 hospitals and health facilities; provided nation-leading educational opportunities for our children through 56 new schools; and boosted police numbers by 1,050 to tackle the scourge of meth and to keep our streets safe. Think of projects like the Perth City Link, Elizabeth Quay, the new underground busport, the Gateway project to transform roads around the airport, the Perth Cultural Centre upgrades, the Perth Children's Hospital and the Butler rail extension. The Liberal government has created thousands of jobs and is providing critical infrastructure and services that plan for the future. It has made the right decisions and is getting on with the job of making people's lives better.
Contrast this eight years of achievement by the Liberals with Mark McGowan and WA Labor. No-one should forget that, when Labor were last in power, they were paralysed by inaction and scandal. Every Western Australian can remember what our state was like in 2008—dullsville. Labor talked but did not actually do anything. Western Australians are workers but, if Labor had their way, tens of thousands of Western Australians' jobs would not exist—36,821, to be exact. That is 36,821 jobs that were created by Liberal government infrastructure projects that Labor and Mark McGowan have been opposed to. Labor will not support agriculture, they will not support the resource sector and they will not support tourism projects—all of which will cost jobs. Mark McGowan can talk a lot, but he does not have the ability to make the tough decisions that create jobs and deliver the vital infrastructure and services that WA needs.
When Western Australians go to vote in the 2017 state election, they will be in no doubt about the things that the WA Liberal government has done, and is doing, to support economic growth and jobs. This is not an election where we can gamble our state's future on change for change's sake. Today, more than ever, we need a team that has a track record of decision-making and delivery. Only the WA Liberals will continue to take Western Australia forward.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has now concluded.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Infrastructure
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the document.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (17:12): I am pleased to speak about infrastructure, which impacts on my electorate in multiple ways. In the Hawkesbury, a region long ignored by the Liberals, we need to see a pointless Windsor Bridge replacement project stopped and for the New South Wales government to see sense and plan and construct a third crossing for the Hawkesbury River. My Blue Mountains residents are also facing the ridiculous situation of trains being built for our rail lines by the Baird government that are too long and too wide for our stations and tunnels, as revealed by the New South Wales member for Blue Mountains, Trish Doyle. We also face a slow drive on the M4 as we commute, morning and night, squinting into the sun in both directions.
But, without doubt, the biggest concern on infrastructure in my electorate is the plan for Western Sydney Airport. As opposition leader Bill Shorten said of the government last week:
They have made a mess of the process of Badgerys Creek by ignoring the locals instead of including them.
He is right. At every step of this process the community has been ignored, and no last-minute invitation from the Minister for the Environment and Energy to speak briefly with local environmentalists and residents is going to change the year of running from the community that preceded it. He did not even conduct the meeting on his own but had the Minister for Urban Infrastructure by his side, ready to defend the project rather than delve into the detail of the issues.
The government's inadequate response to the Western Sydney Airport environmental impact statement for Badgerys Creek Airport shows the lengths it will go to to get this airport happening, regardless of its impact on the environment and the quality of life of Blue Mountains and Western Sydney residents. On 15 September 2016 the final EIS was published. It is a mammoth project, it is worth billions of dollars, and the environment minister took just 58 days to have his department analyse the thousands of pages of the EIS, advise him and deliver a considered verdict. We do not know how good a job the final EIS did of responding to the issues raised by my community, because my request to make those submissions public was refused. So I remain firmly of the view that the government's approval process does not meet the test supported by the Labor caucus: that the planning be right, including rail, from day one; that it be a creator of good jobs for Western Sydney residents; that the community have their say; and that there is a proper environmental assessment process. These criteria have not been met.
Let's start with the need for a proper environmental assessment process. There have been 41 conditions put on this project. They have been kindly described to me by one Blue Mountains resident as 'complete fluff'. The approvals push every serious study into the future. The conditions that have been approved for an airport at Badgerys Creek based on indicative flights confirm that the lower Blue Mountains will be subjected to disruptive aircraft noise 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with no protections guaranteed; unlike residents of the eastern suburbs, the inner west and the North Shore affected by Kingsford Smith Airport, residents of the western suburbs and the Blue Mountains will not have the protection of a curfew or hourly flight caps.
The approval conditions released by the Minister for the Environment give the go-ahead to the airport despite the government's failure to include comprehensive noise plans in the final EIS. This breaks their own promise. On May 6, 2016 the Minister for Urban Infrastructure said:
Allocating the flight paths to minimise the individual impact on any one point will form part of a comprehensive noise mitigation plan to be contained in the final EIS.
The EIS does not contain those plans; that promise has been broken. The environment minister has approved an airport without knowing what the flight paths will be and what the noise impacts on communities, schools and individuals will be.
And not only has the coalition government failed to provide comprehensive noise mitigation, but the approvals conditions give no certainty that the commitment to use head-to-head operations overnight to reduce night-time noise for residential areas will actually occur. This commitment was made by Labor originally, and I described it at the time as a step in the right direction to recognise the noise impacts on homes under the flight path. The approvals document merely says that the flight path design should 'minimise, to the extent practicable, the impact of overnight flights over residential and wilderness areas'. That is hardly an ironclad promise. Even if the head to head take-offs and landings to the south-west do occur, the best estimate seems to be that it could only happen 80 per cent of the time. That is 73 nights a year when it will not happen—or more than two months a year. My community has a range of views—from 'No airport ever' to 'Won't it be nice to be close when we go on holidays'—but the common element is the belief that we should be able to sleep at night, in peace, as much as anybody else in Sydney can.
To give you an idea of the level of noise we will experience from overnight flights, I took my decibel meter with me into the House today at question time. If the estimates are right, a flight's noise over our homes would peak at about the same volume as the Minister for the Environment, in full swing, answering a question—hopefully, though, for less than three minutes! They do not have to put up with that in Lindfield in the middle of the night—and nor should anyone have to—because they get a curfew from 11 pm to 6 am. Others would say that there were already aircraft using Mascot at night even with a curfew. We get that. The rules say that small propeller-driven aircraft, low-noise jets that meet weight and noise requirements, and a limited number of freight aircraft can operate at night. This allows movement of time-critical freight, including mail and fresh food. A small number of international passenger-jet movements can be approved during the shoulder period between 5 am and 6 am—and, of course, emergency flights can come and go. But during the curfew aircraft must operate over Botany Bay, so there are still protections. That all seems very reasonable. So if there has to be an airport, give us the same rules. It would, at least, be fair.
You will have to forgive us as a community for being cynical about any commitments made by this government. They are either deliberately misleading us or are simply incompetent. Let me explain. In spite of decisions being made without flight paths finalised, the Western Sydney Airport website helpfully provides us with a noise modelling tool. This noise modelling tool is the department's own tool designed to help us residents understand what is being proposed. You punch in your address and it tells you the number of flights you will face and at what height. What that tool tells me is that if my child goes to Blaxland East Public School, which nestles in a quiet bush neighbourhood, the school, homes and neighbours will receive by 2030 up to 75 flights over it in the day time, 20 more in the evening and up to 30 overnight, at less than 6,000 feet.
That information does not match with the promises the minister has made. So which information is right? Do we believe the information we are being given? How can we believe the information we are being given? Is it any wonder that our view is that the commercial imperatives and profitability of airlines and the airport operator will go ahead of the best interests of our community?
As an aside, I draw people's attention to Infrastructure Australia analysis, which identifies a number of potential limitations which could present risks to achieving the estimated economic benefits of the airport, including inconsistencies in the economic appraisal methodology. But the basic facts are: if it is good enough for the rest of Sydney to be given protections through things like caps and curfews then it is good enough for the Blue Mountains and Western Sydney, and if it is good enough for the minister's own electorate on Sydney's North Shore to be spared from aircraft noise at night by curfew then it is good enough for us, at roughly the same distance and with aircraft at roughly the same height. Western Sydney and the Blue Mountains residents should not be treated as second-class citizens and collateral damage of big business and the coalition government.
What we are left with now is an approval for an airport where we do not know what the flight paths will be, what the noise impacts will be, what the biodiversity management will be, what the exact impacts on our world heritage national park are, what the air quality impacts really are, when the fuel lines might be built and how the electricity grid relocation will work. They basically gave the airport the go-ahead on the proviso that the site developer comes up with plans for these things. Every single major study is pushed into the future and most are likely to occur after contracts have been signed. What happens if those studies do not stack up? While the government may not have a plan for that, my community does. Anyone who decides to build this airport, whether its the operators of Sydney Airport or another consortium, needs to know that the one thing they will not get from our community is silence. We will not be silent when we see an unfair plan. We will not be silent when we see a poor process and we will not be silent about something that is bad for our community—not now and not ever.
Mr HOGAN (Page) (17:23): Thank you Deputy Speaker. It is good to see you in the chair—great authority and grace when you are there. I look forward to talk about the infrastructure statement and I will be more broad and talk about infrastructure in general. Obviously, one of the biggest infrastructure projects that is happening in regional Australia is the dual duplication of the Pacific Highway, and what a very important project it is. In 2013 roughly $5½ billion was needed to complete the dual duplication of the highway. We do this for three reasons, and you being a regional MP would understand this. Firstly, we do it obviously to decrease fatalities on the road. The fatalities on the highway are still far too high. They are at multi-decade lows because of the work that has already been done on the dual duplication. Where the highway has been dual duplicated the fatalities have fallen, and therefore the fatalities on the highway as a whole have dropped off. But certainly in those areas where the dual duplication has not happened, there are still far too many fatalities. They happen regularly and they are a great tragedy for the whole community.
Secondly, the other reason we do this is that it is good for jobs. At the peak in my electorate, probably in about six to 12 months, there will be close to 2,500 to 3,000 direct jobs that have been created in the building of this highway. We know that has a wider spin-on. There are roughly 2½ jobs for every job you create, so you are talking around 7,000 jobs direct and indirect in my community because of the government's commitment to this project.
Thirdly, once the highway is finished, you will see a lot more economic activity. Transport is going to be much easier for freight, but also tourism will increase because more people will find it easier to get to the region. We have already seen that in areas that now have the dual duplication. So they are the three reasons that we do it, in that order: fatalities, jobs and economic activity, with fatalities No. 1 by a long way.
But there is a story to tell about that.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:26 to 17:37
Mr HOGAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will just rehash because I know you were riveted—as most of the people in the chamber were—when I was cut off in the middle of a sentence by that interruption from the House of Reps. I was talking about the Pacific Highway and the wonderful investment that it is, for three reasons. No. 1, as I said, is the decrease in fatalities—the main reason that we do these things; and then there are the jobs and the economic activity that it brought.
Deputy Speaker, you are probably saying to yourself, 'I am sure there was bipartisan support for this.' You are wrong if you are thinking that. There was not bipartisan support because, in 2013, the then Labor government made a very strategic decision. Firstly, let me compliment the previous Labor government because at one stage they did lift federal funding on the Pacific Highway, from what had historically been a 50-50 split to 80-20. But then, lo and behold, there was a change of state government in New South Wales to a Liberal-Nationals coalition government and the then federal Labor government decided that they did not want to fund it at 80 per cent anymore; they wanted to go back to 50 per cent.
The state government had not been budgeting for that, because it had been funded at 80-20 for quite some time and the completion of the highway would be delayed. The state government were not in a position to do that because that is not how it had been funded, and it all would have been delayed, but—and I compliment a previous minister for infrastructure, Warren Truss, who I had discussions with prior to the 2013 election—we got a commitment that, if the federal coalition government were to be elected in 2013, the coalition government would maintain the funding for the Pacific Highway at the 80-20 split. That meant that the over $5 billion was continued at a pace and is continuing at a pace. Just a couple of weeks ago I announced tenders for $1 billion worth of works. A lot of the highway that is left to do is actually in the federal electorate of Page. There is a 155-kilometre section between Woolgoolga in the south and Ballina in the north, all within the electorate of Page. At the moment there is work taking place on about 90 kilometres of that section. So on 90 kilometres of the highway there is work taking place, but on 65 kilometres there is yet to be any work started. We do have a 2020 completion date. I was delighted to announce tenders worth $1 billion to ensure that the work starts on the remaining 65 kilometres, and that work will be starting very shortly. I think it is in about six to 12 months when work on the highway in that section will be at a peak. As I said, there will probably be around 3,000 direct jobs created and many more thousands of indirect jobs.
I will also broaden on some other infrastructure that we are doing specifically in my electorate. As you know, Deputy Speaker, the coalition government strongly supports the National Stronger Regions Fund. I was delighted in round 2 of that fund to get five projects for my local community. There was $3½ million for the Casino saleyards, a regional saleyard that is very important. The Casino meatworks is across the road and employs over 1,00 people, and is the biggest private employer in the region for hundreds of kilometres. As a private employer the saleyard is very important to their business. This is a $7 million upgrade—the council are putting in $3½ million as well. Casino is the beef capital, Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you are aware. Rockhampton pretend, but Casino is the beef capital. That saleyard upgrade will ensure that Casino maintains its place where it belongs. There is $1 million for Toonumbar Dam in Kyogle, a great dam. I have been out there many times. It is a great tourist facility. It has an unsealed part of the road. It is important for tourism and growth in Kyogle. There is $850,000 for the Ballina Marine Rescue Tower, which is really important. The old one was literally falling over. That is important for the fishing and also for recreational boating in Ballina. There is over $4 million for the cane growers at the Harwood Sugar Mill on the Clarence. Sugar is a very important industry down there. They have great international competitors. This is going to help them with logistics and help them get their product to market a lot cheaper. Also, there is over $2 million for the Lismore Quadrangle project, which includes a regional art gallery, which is much more than an arts centre and which is going to bring a new tourism dollar to Lismore.
I only have 2½ minutes left. I wish I had another 10. I may even ask for an extension if I can get it, because I could keep going.
Wooden bridges is another program that was started. The wooden bridges program was begun under a coalition government in 2013 because we know that those wooden bridges in regional Australia are very important. They are not just important so that people who live there can get over them; they are important because a lot of wealth and a lot of product is produced in regional Australia and we need infrastructure to be able to get it out. I have been delighted, in round 2 of the Bridges Renewal Program and also with some election commitments, to give over $4 million to Kyogle Shire to ensure that they now have about 12 or 13 bridges that will be upgraded under this program. There is one that people have to drive on, so it takes them 20 kilometres more to get to the nearest centre because their wooden bridge has been closed. There are cattle, blueberries—a lot of wealth is coming out of that shire, and it has been delightful to be able to announce assistance for them.
The Roads to Recovery Program I am sure you know well, Deputy Speaker. Roads to Recovery began under John Anderson, who pushed very hard for that. He was the previous leader of the Nationals. He saw that local governments needed help with their local roads. That program began under John Anderson in that portfolio and we have tripled the money to our local governments in the last few years to help them with that program. These are all very important programs for my electorate and, indeed, for regional Australia.
There is more. In the last election campaign there was a focus on infrastructure. I do not want to go off topic, but there are things like Oaks Oval—a big sporting complex in Lismore—and over $1 million for that. There is the Riverside Precinct Plan in Maclean. Maclean is a beautiful part of the world on the Clarence river—the Scottish town of Australia. It is on the Clarence and it is just a beautiful part of the river. We are going to upgrade the riverside precinct there, which is obviously going to bring a lot more tourism dollars there. Woolgoolga is a new part of the electorate for me, and a beautiful part of the world. We are going to give a million dollars to the Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club as well, because of the important work that they do. Their old centre needed a bit of upgrading.
Others include in Casino an amphitheatre upgrade. Southern cross lads are going to teach young men and women to drive more safely, because we have had some horrific accidents. There was one where four young gentlemen in our community lost their lives. Unfortunately, I am going to run out of time, but infrastructure continues to abound under the coalition. (Time expired)
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (17:45): Well-planned infrastructure is essential not only to growing the economy but to improving quality of life, as any government should. The way we plan infrastructure needs to focus on addressing regional inequalities and ensuring that everyone, matter where they live, enjoys a decent quality of life.
My electorate sits almost entirely within the heart of the area identified as the Western Sydney Priority Growth Area, which includes the Western Sydney airport. In the Greater Sydney Commission draft South-West District Plan, published last week, the region was forecast to have a population of well over one million by 2036, up from 715,000 this year. These developments will pose significant challenges for the residents in my area now and into the future, which will rely on a balanced approach to infrastructure to address.
In my maiden speech I said that 68 per cent of the workforce in my electorate travel outside the area each day to their place of employment. The impact that the quality of the infrastructure has on my constituents is magnified intensely. We experience average commutes of approximately 1½ hours each day, which eats into time that could otherwise be spent at home or with family. The way that the government treats infrastructure also says something about its commitment to improving the lives of the many Australians living in outer regions, like the one I represent. The consequences of not effectively addressing the infrastructure needs of our growing outer suburbs are magnified such that they are of concern.
Infrastructure and its centrality in lifting the quality of the day-to-day lives of working Australians and their families was well understood by one of my predecessors in Werriwa, Gough Whitlam. While his government is remembered for many other great reforms, to those in my electorate who are old enough it is best remembered for the National Sewerage Program. Prior to that, there was little or no infrastructure of this kind. Most people were getting visits from the pan man or, if you were really lucky, you might have had septic. People thought muddy backyards and outhouses were the best they could ever expect, given their incomes. In 1973 the number of houses without a sewer connection in Western Sydney exceeded 160,000. By 1978 the number had dropped to well below 100,000. Sewerage went from being something available only to the privileged to being a necessity, which was only provided through the leadership of a federal government that understood the infrastructure needs of our suburbs and worked to ensure a better standard of living through all. My household was one of the many beneficiaries.
What this shows is that infrastructure is as much about long-term vision as it is about having a practical understanding of needs now and into the future. My electorate contains a significant number of logistics and distribution hubs, particularly around Prestons, which are set only to expand with the airport and the intermodal across the river from my electorate. These businesses rely on good quality freight access via both road and rail. The need for a more balanced solution is evident here also, but again I find concerns with the government's approach, allocating funds for some road infrastructure projects but little or no rail investment to assist with the congestion on our roads, which is only intensifying.
If infrastructure is not provided, it will vastly impact on my electorate. Not only are these businesses vital employers for the region but they make significant contributions to assisting unemployment in the region. A fortnight ago the member for Chifley and I visited Mission Providence in Miller. Miller is a particularly challenging community with a higher than average unemployment rate. They identified a number of businesses that were opening up each month they were willing to assist local jobseekers to get back into the workforce.
It was wonderful to spend time with Hang, the manager of the Miller office. She is actually one of the success stories of Mission Providence in Miller. She and I have a bit in common: we both went to the same primary and high schools and we live in the same suburb in my electorate, although I did attend the school many years before her. She started at Mission Providence about 12 years ago as a client and then became a volunteer. She has now progressed to be the manager of the jobactive service provider. Her enthusiasm for her clients and their future is infectious. She and her staff are so positive about each of their cases.
I asked each of the case officers the one thing they would ask for to assist people into employment and their resounding response was transport. In other words, the jobs are being made available by local businesses but the transport infrastructure is just not there to support jobseekers in accessing employment, essentially reinforcing a cycle of unemployment. I have heard anecdotally of many cases where case officers have resorted to offering lifts to their clients because bus services do not start until 6 am, the time when they need to start these jobs.
This is a common story across not only Western Sydney but outer suburbs nationally. A report released last week by the Brotherhood of St Laurence said that transport problems are reported to be the biggest barrier to work for young people—almost 25 per cent, and that issue goes to 80 per cent in the 55-plus age group. Young people in my electorate reflect these statistics, struggling to access employment because they do not have either a licence or a car. In metropolitan Sydney no-one's employment prospects should be so negatively impacted by where they live. This region is not about to grow. It is no longer about planning for the future. There are entire suburbs being built right now and it is the government's responsibility to ensure essential services are in place to meet that demand.
Based on what I have seen and heard so far I have cause for concern. Look at the NBN, the biggest infrastructure commitment at this point, as an example. I already have new constituents moving into greenfields developments in Edmondson Park. These developments were advertised as NBN-ready, but people are moving in to discover that their homes lack any fixed connections, and this includes home fixed-line phones not just the internet.
The new suburbs already struggle with amenities as basic as parking. Edmondson Park has a new railway station, where I spent some time during the election campaign. Already there are many complaints about the availability of parking. The station is barely two years old. It has approximately 450 parking spots in a suburb which will house 5,000 residents in the next five years. Also the suburbs of Horningsea Park, Prestons, Casula, Bardia and Ingleburn use this station. The infrastructure is just grossly inadequate.
West Hoxton and Green Valley in my electorate have been waiting for internet connections for at least 10 years. The Western Sydney airport will be a significant project and has been listed as such by Infrastructure Australia. The airport is expected to host 9,000 jobs in less than 12 years, but as yet there are no plans for a heavy rail line into the airport. There must be significant upgrades to roads to stop the gridlock that will occur with this extra traffic.
The government needs to ensure that it is taking a broad view of the infrastructure needs of our suburbs, particularly in Werriwa. It is necessary to have an understanding of what it is to have a decent quality of life, to have access to employment and to have the ability to spend time with your family every day. We also need to be ready for growth when it happens, not be catching up after it. Simply put: services should have capacity for the populations they are designed to serve.
The alternative of not getting this right reduces people living in my area to long queues on roads, long queues at bus stops, overcrowded train stations and trains, and long wait times at the local hospital. Recently it has been reported that 40 per cent of people presenting at Liverpool Hospital are waiting in casualty over four hours. It is critical that the government gets infrastructure right.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (17:54): Australia is a growing nation, and with that comes a need for improved infrastructure. As the Prime Minister said last week, the coalition knows that building infrastructure means building the nation, and the federal government is meeting Australia's needs head-on and has increased infrastructure expenditure to a record $80 billion to get vital projects underway across the country. That includes $50 billion for transport infrastructure and $30 billion for other infrastructure, like the National Broadband Network, water infrastructure, regional grants programs and other major projects.
In Queensland, the federal government's current commitments towards Queensland's land transport infrastructure through the Infrastructure Investment Program is $11.4 billion from 2013-14 to 2019-20. This includes $2.2 billion in 2016-17. This government has committed $914 million to the Gateway Upgrade North project that will support economic growth, improve accessibility to the Port of Brisbane and Brisbane Airport, and improve safety and travel for motorists for my constituents and for my learned friend here, the member for Brisbane, and his constituents as well.
Outside of Brisbane, the Bruce Highway is our No. 1 priority. So far, the coalition has completed 10 projects out of our 10-year $6.7 billion commitment to upgrade the Bruce Highway. In my electorate of Fisher, on Queensland's Sunshine Coast, the federal government to date has committed nearly $1.5 billion to infrastructure investment on projects both large and small, including $1.42 billion on major road projects, $22 million as part of the Roads to Recovery program, $5 million through the Community Development Grants Program and $10 million to the Sunshine Coast Council through the Financial Assistance Grant program.
In September, I was very pleased to represent the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to announce the long-awaited upgrade of the $929.3 million Caloundra Road to Sunshine Motorway interchange project in my electorate of Fisher. With a booming population, this is a game-changing project and one that will help address one of the worst bottlenecks on the Sunshine Coast. The federal government is contributing 80 per cent of the money for this vital upgrade, which includes widening the highway to three lanes and an innovative new design to the Caloundra Road interchange.
However, the federal government understands that the infrastructure needs of the Sunshine Coast do not end there—far from it. I have consistently spoken in this chamber about the current Bruce Highway Upgrade Planning Study, currently being undertaken between the Sunshine Coast and Pine Rivers Bridge. The Australian government has provided $6.4 million, with $1.4 million coming from the Queensland government. The project will help determine the best way to increase the capacity and alleviate flooding and safety issues along that stretch of the Bruce Highway. This planning study project commenced in mid-2016 and is currently expected to be completed in mid-2018.
While I am pleased this project is underway, surely we can to better than mid-2018. People living on the coast and people travelling to the coast need this project, this planning study, to be done much sooner. I will take this opportunity, once again, to call upon the Queensland transport minister, Mark Bailey, to have this study fast-tracked. This is not a time for politics or point-scoring. Sunshine Coast residents and people travelling to the Sunshine Coast from the 'Bruce car park'—because that is often what it is—need this study done ASAP. Minister Bailey, this is in your total control. I ask that you work with me and my federal colleagues to deliver this planning study by mid-2017.
The Sunshine Coast is also pursuing a commitment to another transport infrastructure project, and that is the duplication of the North Coast rail line. This line is essentially the same as it was when it was built over 100 years ago. The upgrade was promised but never delivered by Queensland Labor governments in the recent past. It was the LNP that finally put in a proposal in 2015 to upgrade the line between Beerburrum and Landsborough to provide more than 150 extra weekly services, improve passenger and freight transport reliability, and create more than 3,000 new jobs during construction.
I am buoyed by the knowledge that the coalition government has an appetite for investing in rail infrastructure projects across the nation. On urban passenger rail projects from 2013-14 to 2018-19, the Australian government is currently scheduled to spend $95 million for the Gold Coast Light Rail Stage 2, $1.7 billion for the Sydney Metro, and $857.2 million for the Melbourne Metro, to name just a few.
There is no doubt that we need to get better at planning and building the infrastructure Australia needs, and to do that we have to work together—all governments, industry, stakeholders, consumers and citizens. Part of this equation is to closely look at some of the costs associated with some of our biggest contracts. It is a sad fact that many contracts are being greatly inflated by the tactics of unions—namely, the CFMEU. This is why, as a builder and a construction lawyer, I am so passionate about the return of the ABCC. I agree with the comments made just yesterday by the CEO of Master Builders Australia, Wilhelm Harnisch, that the return of the ABCC will mean schools, hospitals, roads and other essential community infrastructure will be constructed at significantly lower cost than they are currently. The reintroduction of the ABCC will deliver lasting benefits for the community and savings for taxpayers. Why? Under current industrial relations conditions, Master Builders estimate that construction costs are 30 per cent higher than they should be. However, from my own experience I would suggest that the Master Builders figures are grossly understated. Given my background, many builders and subcontractors have approached me since I became the member for Fisher. Many of their stories are tales of great sadness and great oppression. The evidence that has been presented to me is that the cost blowout on commercial union sites, as opposed to non-union sites, is somewhere between 60 and 100 per cent, rather than the estimated 30 per cent.
Mum-and-dad businesses are suffering because of the intimidation—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 18:22
Mr WALLACE: Mum-and-dad businesses are suffering because of the intimidation and lawlessness of the CFMEU, and those opposite are complicit. Take, for example, the case of Andrew Bourke, who runs a small security and traffic control business for the construction industry. Andrew's business won a job with Grocon, which is one of the few tier 1 building companies whose management has the intestinal fortitude to fight back against the unlawful demands of the CFMEU. Because Grocon do not give in to the unlawful demands of the CFMEU, Andrew's business has been black-banned from every other building site in this country. Andrew is a very brave man. I suggested to him that he should remain anonymous, but he wants his story told. His hope is that the crossbenchers in the Senate will hear his story—an actual story of real people, real mums and dads with real kids going to real schools with real mortgages. The CFMEU shamelessly put the weights on other builders to have Andrew's business kicked off six other building sites, all because Andrew refused to bow to the demands of the CFMEU and continued to work for Grocon. Now, 20 people who worked for Andrew are out of jobs, and the Labor Party pretend to be the party for the worker. What a joke! The ALP is an absolute disgrace in the way that it continues to run a protection racket for the CFMEU. Shame on those building contractors who bowed to the unlawful demands of the CFMEU. Their lack of courage and of willingness to do what is right and stand up against the CFMEU is appalling, and they stand condemned for their appeasement.
Unfortunately, it is not just about building companies that are beholden to the unions. Around noon on Thursday, 8 September 2016, hundreds of CFMEU workers walked off Brisbane city construction sites to protest an industrial dispute in Victoria, and the Queensland state Labor government did nothing to stop them.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (18:24): I rise to make a contribution to the annual infrastructure statement and, in doing so, I want to focus particularly on the severe lack of investment by this government in Western Sydney and the impact it is having on our growing community and our growing economy. This has all come about following the Prime Minister's self-congratulatory diatribe last Thursday that would give a couple of Xanax a run for their money in sending people to sleep. It showed us that this Prime Minister and his Liberal government are completely out of touch with ordinary Australia and do not understand the infrastructure needs of Western Sydney.
In almost all things, Western Sydney is being left behind when it comes to government investment and, yet, governments from all levels are too keen to take from the pockets of Western Sydney families and small businesses week after week without a plan or ability to deliver. I have said it before and I will say it again: Western Sydney deserves nothing less than the attention and the investment given to other major growth areas around the country by the federal government.
First and foremost, we need a jobs plan that secures and encourages stable and meaningful employment and we need a jobs plan that trains and supports young people trying to get a start in life. The lack of this could not be more highlighted in the government's PaTH—which should be called 'PaTHetic'—program for young people and its inability to answer the country's housing affordability crisis.
Too much opportunity has been ripped out of Western Sydney by Liberal governments failing to support young people and failing to invest in retraining workers for the 21st century. Too much opportunity has been squandered by this infrastructure-lazy government that talks big but delivers little. In fact, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out last week, this government repeatedly falls billions of dollars short on its own infrastructure-spending rhetoric. That is billions of dollars worth of promises delayed and neglected and billions of dollars of local benefits not flowing into communities like mine in Lindsay.
So while this government says it is building, the cold hard numbers printed on the pages of their budget prove otherwise. Meanwhile, they continue to rip money out of worthwhile projects that funnel cash into questionable projects without proper analysis being carried out or completed and without proper consultation with affected communities being undertaken.
One major issue of concern in my electorate is the process this government has undertaken around Western Sydney airport, which can only be described as a complete shambles. Last week the Leader of the Opposition labelled the process a mess, and I agree. We still do not know what the flight paths will look like; we still do not know how many flights there will be; we still do not know what transport options will be built; we still do not know what jobs will be created and we still do not know the true impact this airport will have on nearby residential areas, as well as our valuable and local natural habitat and national parks.
I will park here and hover over the jobs plan and the 'tick and flick' this government has undertaken in relation to Western Sydney airport, aka Badgerys Creek. Whilst I acknowledge that during the construction phase there will be jobs generated on this massive infrastructure project, the government has not landed on any semblance of a jobs plan for Western Sydney. The jobs numbers they are quoting for this airport are significantly higher than Mascot employs and when the government is pressed on the kinds of jobs we might get as a result of this airport, we are told retail and car hire. However, this government promised a jobs plan back in May and we have nothing concrete or meaningful, only a few numbers plucked out of the sky.
Yet, with all these unknowns, this government has jumped feet first, ticking and flicking this project, and then has the hide to present it as some sort of revolutionary solution to the issues we see facing Western Sydney when, in fact, it is a perfect example of everything wrong with this government's approach to Western Sydney. No consultation, no long-term solutions, no upfront discussion about pros and cons or noise mitigation plans: just a proclamation made by a Prime Minister from Point Piper and an urban infrastructure minister from the Upper North Shore. I do not believe for a second they have considered what it is we need to build and support our growing community. If they had, they might have reconsidered their second-rate NBN rollout in Western Sydney that is constraining growth and reducing our productivity capacity, affecting thousands of small businesses and entrepreneurs in my electorate of Lindsay.
We hear time and time again from those opposite how they consider themselves to be the better financial managers in this country, and yet they have doubled the cost of the NBN while delivering a network that will be half the speed; yet they want us to trust them with a billion-dollar airport build. I use the word 'delivering' very loosely, considering they are hopelessly behind with the rollout of their second-rate NBN, even though they have been in government for more than three years. They promised everyone in Australia would have access to very fast broadband by the end of the year and, with only 32 days left, they have nearly eight million premises to go; not to mention that this government had to look to Ireland to bring in tradespeople who can lay copper infrastructure.
Something that has been pointed out time and time again by me in this place is the health infrastructure that the people of Lindsay sorely need that neither the Liberal government nor state Liberal government have managed to invest in or build in almost four years at the federal level and six years at the state level. Nepean Hospital sorely needs urgent infrastructure investment. That simply has not been a priority for the Liberals. The level of incompetence on display is truly astounding. But as a government their indifference to creating and supporting local jobs is even worse. If they cared about Western Sydney families and if they cared about being a government that creates opportunities through infrastructure, rather than entrenching disadvantage, they would support local workers by guaranteeing Australian apprenticeships will get a go on major infrastructure projects. They would make sure local workers are prioritised— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): The time being 6.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That grievances be noted.
Health Care
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (18:30): In the grievance debate tonight I want to speak about the parlous state of our healthcare system under the Turnbull government. We saw during the course of the election campaign that people voted against a government that had made cuts to Medicare, with the ongoing freeze of the Medicare Benefits Schedule meaning that GPs across the country had started to charge more out-of-pocket costs for patients. They voted against the rise the Turnbull government wanted in the cost of medicines, they voted against the changes to the Medicare Safety Net and they voted against the privatisation of the Medicare payment system, something that was exposed during the course of the election campaign and that the government has tried to back away from.
On election night we saw Malcolm Turnbull's dummy spit. He said, 'I didn't do so well, and it's all because of Labor's campaigning tactics.' On the eve of the election we heard him say, 'No-one will pay more to go and see the doctor.' Ever since, we have had a government that has not understood the message the electorate gave it about health, not understood why people were worried about their healthcare system; it has spent almost the entire time whingeing about Labor's campaign tactics. What a joke. But the real joke, which is not so much a joke, is what the government is still intending to do. We know that still on the table is the ongoing freeze on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, and we know the impact that is having on general practice across the country.
We also know that every single one of the cuts that the government had before the election campaign are still on the table for 1 January. I will remind people of those. There is the increase to the price of medicines for general patients by $5 per script, or 80c per script for concession card holders. That is a budget measure that the government is still pursuing. The government's intention is to cut, as of 1 January, the bulk-billing incentive for all pathology patients for all pathology services. What that means for patients is that they will start paying a co-payment for pathology services. The government has got itself in an absolute world of pain when it comes to a deal around rents it has done with Pathology Australia, and now GPs who have based their ongoing business model on the amount of rent that they have been getting. The government has still said, as a result of those decisions it is making, that it intends to cut bulk-billing for pathology. The same goes for diagnostic imaging. None of that has changed or is off the table. The government wants to cut the amount of money that people are paid through the Medicare Safety Net. Whilst people might hit the Medicare safety net quicker, they will get less back as a result of the government's decisions. All of those things are still government policy and sit on the table today.
One of the others is the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. What the government has sought, and continues to seek as its policy today, is the abolition of Labor's Child Dental Benefits Schedule. We have a million kids, many of them in some of the poorest communities across the country, accessing for the first time regular dental treatment, getting the preventative dental care that they need, getting the oral health advice that they need and setting themselves up for a lifetime of good oral health. It is a great Labor program. The government wants to get rid of that entirely, but what it also wants to do is get rid of the national partnership agreement for public dental. It has already cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of our public dental scheme and, if anyone has tried to access public dental anywhere across the country, the waiting lists are huge. The government wants to axe that and it wants to take some of the money out of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule because it has made no budgetary provision beyond 1 July next year for public dental. If the government has its way, we will see the Child Dental Benefits Schedule abolished as of 1 January, so no kids' dental. How cruel can you get? They want to cut into kids' teeth and there is no budgetary provision for any Commonwealth funding for public dental beyond July this year. What an absolute disgrace!
All of these problems are of the government's own making, but the people who are paying for this are patients across the country as they go into their GPs every single day trying to access the care that they need and finding out that they now have to pay a fee where they were previously bulk-billed. We already know that patients delay going to see a general practitioner because of cost. We know that that happens today.
The government wants to increase the cost of medicines. That is a provision that is here, and these are the things that this government said during the election were all still part of its policy and remain part of its policy today. It is patients who pay—patients who are already deferring going to see the doctor and patients who are already deferring scripts because of the cost of medicines. If you talk to any pharmacist around the country, they will tell you that on a daily basis they have patients coming in with their scripts saying: 'Which of these can I do without this week? Which medicine can I not take?' It is a critical part of their health care overall because of the co-payments that are in the system already. What does the government think is going to happen when it increases those co-payments to the extent the patients are faced with a choice about whether they access the vital medicines they need or whether they actually go without food?
As I said with bulk-billing with pathology, we know in this community that pathology is increasingly a very important part of the diagnostic journey. We need to make sure that patients are getting the tests that they need, and bulk-billing has been a very critical part of that. We know that those bulk-billing incentives have not only maintained the bulk-billing rate at such a high rate for pathology but in fact increased it, and it is the same with diagnostic imaging. But increasingly under this government we are seeing more and more cuts that directly affect patients.
There are ways to make savings in health. We did that when we were in government without actually affecting patients, but this government does not seem to care about that. What it has been trying to do time and time again is transfer costs onto the states and transfer costs directly under patients. What we have seen since this government has come to office is increasing out-of-pocket costs for people trying to access the health care they need. Who does that hit? It hits the people in rural and regional Australia. It hits the poorest and the sickest of our patients. That is what this government has done time and time again.
We have also seen what they did with public hospital funding. There were significant agreements, years in the making, reached with every state and territory government in order to make sure that we stopped the cost-shifting that was happening in public hospitals. We reached a deal where the Commonwealth would fund 50 per cent of growth in the efficient price of hospital-based activity, ended the cost-shifting and ended the blame game that was happening between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The government comes into office and, in the 2014 budget, scraps that agreement entirely—a shock to all states and territories—and then puts back on the table a measly amount of money that is not keeping up with demand. If anyone has tried to access an emergency department across the country or if tried to get elective surgery in our public hospital system, they will know that they are not keeping up with demand today. They are under pressure, and what the government has done is basically status quo. It has said, 'We will keep exactly the same amount of growth funding in the system today that we had last year and the year before.'
So this government, at every single opportunity, has absolutely trashed Australia's health-care system. It is not a universal health-care system anymore under the Turnbull government; it is definitely becoming a two-tiered healthcare system where whether you can access the health care you need will depend on what resources and financial means you have. This is not what Medicare is about, it is not what the Australian people have believed in for a long period of time and it is not the system of universal health care that Bob Hawke and the Labor Party so proudly introduced over 30 years ago now.
What we have seen again from this government at every single opportunity is that they have seen health as a source of budgetary cuts. They have not seen it as an investment; they have seen it as a problem to be solved by way of cutting. We have also seen, in the last few days, reports about what the government has said—that they are trying to reset the frame on health with their signature policy, the patient centred medical homes. When you have every doctor group in the country now united in telling the government that they will not work because of the lack of investment, the lack of work in the design phase, and doctor groups are telling their constituencies to not participate in the patient centred medical homes, you have to ask: what more of a bungle can this government possibly make of our healthcare system? At every opportunity they have cut and basically traduced Medicare and, frankly, they should be condemned for it.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (18:40): Australia's political discourse, alongside democratic systems around the globe, sits at a critical juncture. Increasing civic disengagement and dissatisfaction with major political parties is raising concerns as to how we, as a government and as a society, progress democracy. Australia is fortunate in the robustness of our modern system of governance. However, we must recognise our flaws where they exist and embrace criticism to evolve into our best selves. At its roots, democracy recognises that the key to a nation's success is empowering the public to express their opinion and their ideas. This can come through the ballot box or through the media, but it should be in the form that is conducive to healthy debate and open to constructive criticism. The separation of powers, the notion of a free press and the subject of this speech today—parliamentary inquiries—all exemplify the objective of our system of government to encourage informed decision-making and evidence based policy development.
I rise today to express my concerns about the direction of our contemporary political discussion and policy development. Justice Holmes of the US supreme court gave a famous dissent in the case of Abrams against the United States of America in 1919:
… that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market …
Policy based discussions, as well as the method of policy development that we rely on, have become dangerously destructive rather than constructive. We are descending further into an abyss of politics that is devoid of any genuine competition of ideas. Locally and internationally, naysaying has superseded debate, and the public is showing their disdain at the ballot box. Last year, in a similar debate, I addressed the relationship between mass media and politics. I identified the conflict between journalistic integrity and the commercial motivation of chasing higher ratings through methods such as clickbait to produce greater profits.
It was a deep question of the value of our political institutions and how modern telecommunications have created the power of the sound byte over considered policy debate. Similarly, as a parliament and government, we must question the ability of our own institutions to develop and execute the best policy platform for Australia's future. This parliament should be a marketplace of ideas that elevates reason and critical analysis as the ultimate gauge for good policy rather than for political or electoral gain. We must inspire re-engagement and evidence based decision-making and encourage the empowerment of stakeholders as well as the voices of public interest. In my political career I have served on a number of parliamentary inquiries, yet none have I been more proud of than the two that have just been completed—the home ownership inquiry and the transport connectivity inquiry.
As one of the many avenues of policy development for a government, a parliamentary inquiry is open to both the public and experts to offer evidence and recommendations in the formulation of policy innovation. This is accepted or amended by the relevant department before being put to the cabinet, upon which, at their discretion, it is adopted as the official policy trajectory of a government. Parliamentary inquiries are powerful bodies in the voice that they give to any and all Australians, as well as the embrace of constructive and bipartisan discussion and input. In March 2015, as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, I requested an inquiry into home ownership. With land being Australia's largest asset class, homeownership underpins our wealth creation and sustainability. This inquiry was commissioned to look into the demand and supply drivers in the housing market, the impact of tax policy, and opportunities to reform. Influenced by domestic and global economic trends, investors have an unfair advantage when buying property, and first home buyers are being systematically locked out of the market. Yet, due to many circumstances, the inquiry ceased before it could deliver its final report.
The inquiry recognised that action should be commenced to manage a nationally coordinated strategic transition from a market dominated by speculative investors to one where every Australian has the opportunity to access affordable housing. This course of action would help restore sound economic fundamentals to our property market and provide optimal resiliency to economic cycles through an increase in homeownership and a reduction in speculation. This unprecedented approach to homeownership through a comprehensive inquiry was founded upon the great benefits of rational and pragmatic evaluation, which should be omnipresent in our political discourse.
Despite an initial setback, I am glad to say that, as of last week, this inquiry has been restarted, and I look forward to the much-needed policy vision for Australia's homeowners that is now being developed. I am pleased to see this critical work in the hands of my successor as the Chair of the Economics Committee, my friend the member for Banks. I wish him all the best for a prompt completion of this work, and I look forward to seeing the final product.
In October 2015 I was appointed chair of the newly formed House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities. The inaugural inquiry of this committee was looking into the role of transport connectivity in stimulating development and economic activity, with a specific focus on opportunities to use value capture to fund high-speed rail. The opportunity is here in the form of a substantial, far-reaching suite of policies to redress the imbalance of our nation's settlement and connect our regions and major cities through high-speed and uniquely funded transport infrastructure.
Value capture is essentially the taxing or levying of unearned benefits. It has the capacity to provide a just hypothecation of funds raised, therefore relieving demand on consolidated revenues, creating headspace for improved services, tax relief or even paying down the debt. It is an extraordinary oversight that governments in Australia have not sought to develop a far-reaching, all-inclusive value-capture model. This oversight has now, with government infrastructure commitments, generated a new opportunistic genre of homeowners seeking others to parcel up their holdings, gain planning approvals and then sell at multiples of their current value to developers. Preconditions such as these that are present in Australia and other trends in the global investment community now conspire to create a perfect storm of opportunity to fund major infrastructure projects, including high-speed rail, through value capture. This would require minimal financial contribution from governments as private consortia utilise our planning systems to create a funding pool based on long-term property value growth.
Over an extensive period of policy consolidation, the inquiry wants a strategic plan to create a more competitive economy, jobs, growth and an affordable housing supply, funded by a value-capture model specifically designed to harness the economic potential of our regional areas through increased connectivity to major urban centres. I am proud to announce that, as of this evening, that inquiry's report has been signed off by the committee, and it will be tabled in parliament, hopefully in the coming weeks.
There could be no greater aspiration for federal government than the creation of an affordable, abundant housing supply and a plan for jobs, growth and homeownership through a sustainable infrastructure funding model. We have an opportunity and the capacity to plan for the next century's real growth needs through value-capture-based funding while stabilising housing prices through equitable tax reform and improved negative-gearing controls. Without parliamentary inquiries or any reasonable appraisal of policy, work cannot commence or continue on a more cohesive and meaningful vision for Australia.
Political debate that seeks to undermine an idea or contribution for the sake of a short-term tactical gain is destructive. It belittles this parliament and risks driving the public away from the major parties, just as congressional stagnation led to the rise of nonmainstream politicians in the US. We should all seek to incite elevated policy development and debate, and debate should seek to embrace innovation as well as constructive criticism. Our policies should be the currency of a government truly concerned with advancing Australia through our plan for jobs, growth and homeownership.
Western Sydney Airport
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (18:50): I wanted to dedicate my grievance tonight to a project in Western Sydney that has been known for years as Badgerys Creek Airport. It is now rebadged as Western Sydney Airport, because the proponents of this airport know how loathed Badgerys Creek was through the late-nineties. It was so loathed that it forced the then Howard government to shelve the plans for that airport because people in Western Sydney realised they were getting a dud deal—that all the problems associated with Sydney Airport were basically being shoved out west, and they were not going to put up with it.
I am often asked why I rail against this airport so much. I rail against it because it is the classic representation of a problem that bedevils Western Sydney. With any of the big decisions that are made about Sydney—a city of two halves: the east and the west—all the big infrastructure decisions are made by decision-makers who do not live in our region. They make decisions completely absent of thorough and genuine consultation with people in our area. Tony Abbott, in January 2013, said he had no plans for a second airport in Western Sydney. He then gets elected and announces it. As I said, this is a classic case of someone on the other side of the city making a plan for the west of the city and—as is always the case with infrastructure in our area—we never get the things in Western Sydney we need; we are given the things we do not want.
We have many needs, such as better roads that do not have to have tolls attached to them. In our part of Western Sydney people in my electorate are paying $35 a day just to travel on toll roads. It would be great to get a toll-free road in Western Sydney. It would be great to get hospitals that are recognised for being the best in the state, rather than being the most stressed in the state—as is the case for the member for Lindsay, who, with Nepean Hospital, has the unenviable title of being an MP with one of the most stressed hospitals in New South Wales. The Liberal government just happened to announce $500 million for the hospital the other day, after their last budget gave a miserly $1 million to the most stressed hospital in the state. We have schools falling apart with the backlog of maintenance needed. Parents are sending their kids to schools where they can see the facilities crumbling around them—frayed carpets, toilets not working and asbestos not removed in playgrounds. There are all these problems.
And what is our answer to it? This airport. This airport is backed by a whole cabal of rent seekers—people who do not live in Western Sydney. These are business people on the other side of town who are seeking to profit. The one I think of, the group that is profiting most out of this, is a group that is ironically—and I use the term deliberately—called the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue, whose chairman operates out of Balmain and does not and will not live in Western Sydney.
The Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue had a great day today. They had a great day! They made $250,000 off a conference today talking about Western Sydney Airport—and it was held in Sydney, in the CBD. They charged people $500 a head and they talked about an airport over 40 kilometres away and they made all this money. There is a reason why they made the money—today, they had the transport minister, Andrew Constance, at their conference. He was talking about all these infrastructure projects and one of the biggest ones was the airport. The chair, Christopher Brown, said, 'Minister Constance led the public discussion on value sharing and was an example of his willingness to engage with industry.' I have never heard the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue talk about problems in our area.
I have mentioned the Nepean Hospital before. I have not once heard the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue call for an investment in some of the most stressed hospitals in the state, but after the funding announcement that I referred to earlier was made they did manage to put out a media release—surprise, surprise!—welcoming the funding decision. They are never there supporting the people of Western Sydney; they are never there criticising the Baird government. They are his great cheerleaders. They are out with the pom, poms, cheering on the Baird government over this announcement, but they are never there doing the hard yards. Why? Because the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue would not be able to get a Baird government minister to attend any of the forums which they could make money from, if they criticised the Baird government. The Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue is all about making money and not about representing Western Sydney. It is an absolute disgrace.
I think there are serious ethical issues involved when a person who has been engaged by government to sit on a panel then makes money from that involvement. In Chris Brown's case, he puts in his own bio that he was involved in the federal commission, which is a federally appointed position, for Sydney's second airport and also the expert panel. So he has been involved in a government panel and now he makes money from that involvement. I think that is wrong. I think it is wrong that a person in that position acts in a federal government appointed role and then goes out, as the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue did today, and makes close to a quarter of a million dollars in fees from this one thing. They are promoting a project, the terms of which they would never tolerate in their part of town. They would never tolerate a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week airport operating over there.
I said before that Sydney is a city of two halves: the east and the west. The east has an airport that is protected by a curfew and hourly flight caps and the west is being told: the only way you get jobs, the only way you get infrastructure, the only way you get anything you want is if you support this airport and you support it on the basis that there is no curfew and there are no hourly flight caps. This is extortion, and it should not be put up with by the people of Western Sydney. They should not cop that. People in Western Sydney, as I have said before, deserve economic opportunity and quality of life. They do not have to sacrifice one for the other. If you want to see government investment in infrastructure then where are we at with things like the M9? What about finding a way to get a road that will connect up the north-west growth centre with the M7? There are 150,000 people living there. This would also open up the employment lands between the M7 and M9 and transform job opportunities in Western Sydney. Why aren't we doing that? We are not. They make an announcement about the M12. That is great, but it is a smaller road relative to what is needed. We do not get it. And this is my point: those businesses, the cabal of rent seekers that back this airport, only support the airport because they are making money from it. They are not championing the things that we need. They are not talking about the run-down schools. They are not talking about the run-down hospitals. They are not talking about the need for extra roads. They are basically talking about being a cheer squad for a Baird Liberal government or for a federal Liberal government by putting a project together that runs counter to what we need.
It is worth bearing in mind that the bulk of the jobs at this airport do not come until the second half of this century. If we want to increase economic activity in Sydney, why aren't we lifting the government imposed restrictions on Sydney Airport to allow more flights, more tourists and more spending power in Sydney? But they will not do that. They basically want to have this airport as the way to do that. They do not have any of the major carriers out there. They do not have any way around the transport of fuel. We still have no idea of how that is going to be done. It will all be done by surface transport, not rail. They have answered none of those questions. Again, I make the point that this is not delivering the infrastructure that Western Sydney really needs; this is about what east of the city wants to see. This is not right, and this is why it is my biggest concern.
The other thing—and I will end on this point—is that I am, as has been well reported, a good friend of the member for Kooyong, the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Josh Frydenberg. I would hate for Josh Frydenberg to be recognised as the first minister to oversee the loss of a World Heritage listed area in the Blue Mountains. That World Heritage listing by UNESCO occurred when John Howard decided to shelve the second airport. We are now seeing a new airport being created right next to a World Heritage listed area. I do genuinely worry that we will lose the World Heritage listing with this second airport. Again, we need infrastructure that works for Western Sydney, not for Eastern Sydney.
Chisholm Electorate: Education
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (19:00): As the year end fast approaches, so does the end of the school year. December is a significant time for teachers, students, parents, grandparents and guardians. There are so many events to wind up the year end, and so many feelings and emotions are felt by parents, students and family members. That can be a different level of anxiety for different members of the community and for different members of the school and student community. For some it can be a level of excitement and anticipation of what lies ahead after the Christmas break. For others it is a time of insecurity and of letting go of what they know. For yet others it is often a time of year when much anxiety prevails as the wait for exam results continues until around mid-December.
For different students of all ages, this time of year is a mix of different emotions. The key thing, though, is that this time of the education year often marks a time of change for many. Albeit graduation typically is interpreted to mean the conferring of a diploma, certificate or university degree, it can often represent graduating to the next level. To many young children and their parents, the transition from kinder to big school is an important milestone that is recognised at the end of the year. Equally, this is the case for those children in grade 6 going into year 7, even if they are in a school with combined junior and senior schools; for those students in senior schools who are going to start apprenticeships or year 11 and 12; and for students who patiently await their results to see if their preferences for tertiary educational opportunities will eventuate.
A key milestone event for many students is their year 12 results. In Victoria, namely, the Victorian Certificate of Education—the VCE—results come out on December 12. In Chisholm we have two great universities: Deakin University in Burwood and Monash University in Clayton. I am a Monash alumnus and it was a pleasure that only a few weeks ago our Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, visited Monash to launch the opening of the Monash University Biomedicine Discovery Institute. It is interesting to note that this is the first time since 1989the member for Chisholm and a Prime Minister have attended Monash University together.
In business, as in life, innovation is this country's feeder into the future, and the Turnbull government supports innovation as part of our future. The Labor Party scoff at the Turnbull government's innovation agenda. They do not seem to understand the very basic principle that education and innovation are intrinsically linked and that the innovative minds and passion of the students of today are what underpin our future and a strong economy. Innovation can just be a new way to do things—a small idea that becomes the basis for a new start-up or small business. Its very essence represents the individual enterprise value, a value of Liberals and of all Australians—particularly young Australians.
Education goes not just to sciences. All education, be it in languages, the arts or music, is what supports our future and our children and future generations. That is why the Turnbull government supports targeted, measured support for education and our innovation agenda. Unlike the Labor Party, the Turnbull government also supports business and the philosophy of individual enterprise, and provides a broad range of educational experience which also helps our young to build relationships domestically and overseas and to have a wide range of experiences.
It is a testament to the Turnbull government's philosophy and values that many businesses have come and supported the New Colombo Plan. Many students across Australia are the beneficiaries of the New Colombo Plan. Last night I had the absolute honour and joy of attending an amazing event led by our Minister for Foreign Affairs and supported by our Minister for Education, Simon Birmingham, to build and develop the New Colombo Plan. The Turnbull government announced that the New Colombo Plan will support 105 of Australia's brightest undergraduates to live, study and undertake work placements in 17 countries for at least six months. These include people who study in my electorate at Monash University: Louie O'Connor, Genevieve Francois-Townsend and Daniel Benjamin Deward, who all attend Monash. Also, of course, Christopher Williams. I had the pleasure of sitting next to Christopher at the dinner and getting to know him. Christopher attends Deakin University and is very excited and grateful for the opportunity to study in Hong Kong.
The innovative and creative minds of the more senior students in Chisholm, who may attend one of the universities or colleges, start with the support, teaching and education they have reaped from the early years at kinder, primary school and secondary school. This time of the education year often marks a time of change for many. For the university students it can mean planning for next year or it can mean graduating in the course of their choice. Albeit that graduation typically is interpreted to mean the conferring of a diploma, certificate or university degree, it can often represent graduating to the next level.
In the month of December I will have the honour and pleasure of giving graduation certificates to the many students from kinder through to year 12, who attend one of the many fine kindergartens, early learning centres, primary schools or secondary schools in Chisholm. I will have the pleasure of providing education certificates to the young minds at Goodstart Early Learning in Clayton, Koala Childcare kindergarten, the Sweetland Road Early Learning Centre and the Syndal Child Care and Early Learning Centre. Similarly, there are many fine primary schools in Chisholm, including the following at which I will have the pleasure of providing graduation certificates: the Ainslie Parklands Primary School, Essex Heights Primary School, Holy Family Primary School, the Kerrimuir Primary School—a past student of Kerrimuir is our renowned and esteemed Speaker, the Hon. Tony Smith—Mount Waverley Heights Primary School, Mount Waverley North Primary School, Oakleigh Primary School, Parkhill Primary School, Roberts McCubbin Primary School, St Francis Xavier Primary School, Surrey Hills Primary School, Wattle Park Primary School, St Mary Magdalen's, Clayton North Primary School, Clayton South Primary School, Our Lady's Catholic Primary School, Saint Benedict's Primary School and Saint Scholastica's Primary School.
Students from other schools will be making their school milestone with certificates at Ashwood School, Kingswood College, Huntingtower School and the junior schools at Presbyterian Ladies College and Avila College. Similarly, I will also have the opportunity to give awards to the amazing students at Box Hill High School. Koonung Secondary College will be celebrating their speech night in December and will be acknowledging the long service and hard work of principal Mr Peter Wright.
As I said, this is a very special time for many students and their families at various levels at schools across Chisholm. However, the substance and experience of this time of year would not be possible if it were not for the support and hard work of the teachers and staff at these schools. The end of the school year marks the beginning of new journeys. These new journeys begin with the history and background of the journey thus far at school. So many teachers in our lives make an imprint on our initial journey, on our children's lives and on our future journeys.
I thank the principals, staff, school leaders, students, parents, grandparents and many special friends of the schools, kinders and educational institutions in Chisholm for all their respective contributions towards making the journey ahead for the young people and future generations of Australians a great one. Rest assured it is the Turnbull government who provides targeted, measured, intelligent support to education, educational funding and educational opportunities that go beyond the paradigm, that go beyond the standard. This is to support future generations in relation to innovation and education. Innovation is the future and represents the future strength of our economy and the future of generations to come.
Whitlam Electorate
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (19:09): There are many things that my constituents are aggrieved about: the pathetic broadband that is being rolled out through the suburbs relying on rotten and outdated copper technology, the seeming indifference of the government to the creation of full-time and decent jobs, the underfunding of schools in the area or the Prime Minister who seems to have a tin ear to what the needs and aspirations of people in regional Australia are.
But tonight I am going to depart from all of these things. I will have plenty of opportunities in the coming months to talk about those. Tonight my grievance is about the fact that the mismanagement of the affairs of the parliament has meant I have not had the opportunity in the four months since the federal election to pay tribute to the people who returned me here and to say a few words about the changes that have occurred in my electorate. It is a privilege, and one that I do not take lightly, to be elected to the House of Representatives in the Australian parliament as the first member for Whitlam. The name of the seat of Throsby was changed at the 2016 election, and a redistribution occurred. The seat was renamed in honour of one of Australia's greatest prime ministers, the late Hon. Edward Gough Whitlam. There is a longstanding tradition—as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker—that federal seats are often named in tribute to past prime minister once they pass from this earth. The seats of Barton, Curtin, Chifley, Menzies, Gorton and McMahon come to mind. So it is entirely appropriate that we acknowledge a person who has done so much to profoundly change the fabric and the soul of this country.
But before I come to talk about the man Whitlam I would like to say a few words about Dr Charles Throsby, whom my electorate was previously named after. He was a pioneer and a settler after whom the seat was named. Charles Throsby began his career as a naval surgeon before he came to New South Wales in 1802 to take up a position as a medical officer and a magistrate. Six years later, he took up the opportunities offered in a newly formed colony and became a new adventurer, an explorer and a pastoralist. Throsby's energy drove him to explore and open up the areas in the Illawarra, Moss Vale, the Shoalhaven and even the Canberra region, where we are today. His estate, Throsby Park in the Moss Vale area of the Southern Highlands, was granted to him by Governor Macquarie, who greatly valued his exploratory ventures. Throsby became a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council in 1828, but failing health and financial problems unfortunately led to his death just a year later. Interestingly, the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry for Charles Throsby refers to his enlightened position towards Australia's Indigenous people and his belief, remarkable for that time, in living harmoniously with the First Australians. I think it is fair to say that Throsby was a man of some courage and vision—a man who shared Governor Macquarie's forward-thinking view that this new settlement could be a great and flourishing place for all people.
While I was proud to represent a seat named in honour of Dr Charles Throsby, as a Labor member of parliament I am both humbled and honoured to be elected as the first member for a seat named after Whitlam, one of our most esteemed former party leaders. Among the tributes that were offered on the death of Gough Whitlam in 2014, I recall Paul Keating's words: 'There was an Australia before Whitlam and there was a very different Australia after Whitlam.' In three short and tumultuous years of his prime ministership, Gough Whitlam changed our nation forever. There was a new Australia—a modern Australia. It was an Australia the postwar baby boom generation and the newly arrived migrant community could truly reflected them and celebrated their culture.
Before Whitlam there was no universal health care. Before Whitlam access to university education was predominantly reserved for wealthy white men. Before Whitlam Australia's foreign policy clung unquestioningly to the apron strings of the United States and Great Britain. Before Whitlam women were denied equal pay for equal work, and single mothers and the homeless had no supporting benefits. But after Whitlam a truly progressive platform of legislative change had been established: no-fault divorce, federal funding for education, territory representation in the Senate, 18-year-olds given the vote, and federal funding for regional councils. After Whitlam we had our own national anthem, after Whitlam we had our own Order of Australia honours system, and after Whitlam we had a Racial Discrimination Act to bind our governments to equality before the law. Under Whitlam's prime ministership, the historical and cultural maturity of Australia was recognised and valued with the establishment of the National Heritage Commission, the National Gallery and the Australia Council.
Both Charles Throsby and Gough Whitlam shared a belief in the need for Australians to live in peace with Indigenous Australians. Both Throsby and Whitlam wanted that harmony, and as Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was in a position to do something about it. As the member for Whitlam, I humbly follow in their huge footsteps by supporting the movement to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution.
Prime Minister Whitlam was dedicated to this parliament's traditions and processes and took pride in the principles and values of parliamentary representation. In Whitlam we had an exemplar of respect for the political life. To represent people in a seat named after Gough Whitlam is a tremendous privilege, but it also carries a weight of obligation and challenge. It is an obligation I will do my very best to meet. Like every member in this place, I could not hope to do this work and rise to this challenge without the generosity of spirit, shared commitment to Labor values and, frankly, the hard endeavours of a number of people within my electorate who I would like to thank.
In the last election, literally countless volunteers—hundreds of volunteers—were engaged in my campaign. It would be impossible to name them all, but I will have a go: Philip Brown, Gary Ismail, Bilal Aydemir, Jay Windsor, Anne Miller, Jarrod Dellapina and John Kewa. There were the activists from Young Labor, Alex Costello and her amazing and dedicated team—to name just a few, there were Caitlin Roodenry, Damon Vavros, Blake Horcicka, Eamonn Cleary, Rita Andraos, Adrian Zorzut and Kyle Waples. There was strong support of the federal electorate council, including from the immediate past president, Ross Hannah. I am very pleased to say that we have got our very first female president of the Whitlam Federal Electorate Council in Danna Nelse—a wonderful woman she is.
There were the local party members of the Port Kembla branch: Michael Wilson, Norma Wilson, Tom Ward, Bob Turner, Viky King, Charlie Habazin, Petar Bubevski, Charlie and Maria Gibbs, and Russell Abbott. There were my friends in the Southern Highlands Labor: Warren Glase and Graham McLaughlin. Then in Warilla and Mount Warrigal Labor we had Alex McLoud, Marianne Saliba—a fantastic local mayor—and Ilce and Rajna Stefanovski. In Shellharbour and Barrack Heights Labor we had Robert Petreski, Lou Stefanovski and all the activists there. From Dapto Labor we had Mary Johnston, Bob and Wendy Turford, Chris Dawson, Marguerite Kennedy and Alan Cunnynghame, and down at Albion Park there were all the activists, including Tom Hawker.
The unions are copping a bagging from the other side in the other place, but I want to pay tribute to the work they do day in, day out representing people, including in this place. I want to pay tribute to my friends in the CPSU, the USU team, the MUA—my mate Garry 'Hollywood' Keane and his crew—the ANMF and all of the unions who rallied to support me. But particularly I want to support the people who provide support to us not just during a tough election campaign but day in, day out. I know all of us in this House want to find the opportunity to pay tribute to our wonderful staff, and I have been blessed with fantastic staff: Megan Kelly, Allyson Dutton, John Ronan, Jane Mulligan, Boris Baraldi, Benita Andrews, Jarod and Ben. In fact, all of the staff and all of the activists have done so much to help me to do the work that I do in this place.
We have got some real challenges ahead of us. The people of Whitlam have sent me to this place to champion their cause: decent jobs, full-time jobs, secure jobs which provide hope and opportunity for them and their families into the future; well-funded quality schools that are blind to the postcode of the people who walk through their gates day in, day out, seeking the opportunity of a better life; and those railways of the future, the National Broadband Network. The people of Whitlam require—no, they need—a decent National Broadband Network to educate their kids, communicate with their family around the world, do their day-to-day business, interact with government and run their small businesses. I will be championing these issues over the course of the next 12 months, but between now and then, Merry Christmas to all in this place.
International Day of People with Disability
Mrs WICKS ( Robertson ) ( 19:19 ): This Saturday across the world will mark the International Day of People with Disability, an event that celebrates progress and breaking down barriers for people with disability. I rise tonight to speak about this very important day endorsed by the United Nations and held every year on 3 December and also to outline some important local initiatives and some personal stories from my electorate of Robertson on the New South Wales Central Coast.
The Australian government has been supporting the International Day of People with Disability since 1996 and, with an estimated four million Australians with disability, it is more relevant than ever. The themes for this year are focused on the United Nations sustainable development goals and how these can be applied to individuals, businesses, and communities. It is also a chance to celebrate what people with disability can achieve when they have opportunities to reach their full potential. Ultimately, it is about starting a conversation, raising awareness and highlighting disability champions who work incredibly hard to improve the lives of others.
Last year more than 1,000 International Day of People with Disability events were held across Australia, including many in my electorate. We will see this happening across the Central Coast this year as well, including tomorrow at the Woy Woy Public School, where they are holding a disability day. They will begin the day with a morning assembly where students from some of the disability classes will perform concert items. Guest speakers from Wheelchair Sports New South Wales will then give a presentation before all the students in the school rotate around to watch and take part in games of wheelchair basketball.
Next week there will also be a fantastic talent showcase happening, where all funds raised will go towards improving services for young people with a disability on the Central Coast. I would encourage anyone who wants to dance, sing or perform in this extravaganza to get in touch with Job Centre Australia and get ready to jump on stage to perform for special guest judges, friends and family. Job Centre Australia is running the event alongside Regional Youth Support Services, with prizes to be awarded on the day for the best singer, the best dancer, the best media talent act and the best dressed. It will be taking place on Monday, 5 December from 10 am to 2 pm at the Youth Arts Warehouse on Donnison Street in Gosford, and entry is by gold coin donation.
Another incredible and outstanding organisation that I would really like to commend in this House tonight is the Options Theatre Company, based at West Gosford. Part of Options Disability Support Services, this group supports artists with disabilities, making plays and shows, films, dance pieces, radio programs and music. I have never, ever forgotten my first experience with Options—their incredibly funny film called Killing Hope. The theme of that was that you cannot kill hope, no matter how hard you try, and it was extraordinary. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Options CEO Denise Stingmore, artistic director Stuart Smith, engagement director Mandy Coolen, and their team members Andrew Sampford and Simon Boal. Based in an industry-standard dance studio and an open plan theatre space, the theatre company supports emerging artists with physical and intellectual disabilities, as well as participants with chronic physical and mental health issues.
As I touched on earlier, it is estimated that one in five Australians will experience some form of disability. Yet, despite this, Options have told me that only one professional practising artist in 10 is a person with disability. People with disability working in the arts are also more likely to be employed part time, to be engaged in unpaid or volunteer work or to have long periods searching for a job. With this in mind I recently invited the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, the member for Ryan, to my electorate. Part of our day was to meet these young people at Options, to see an exclusive sneak peek of their theatrical work that they are preparing for a run of shows next year, performing Grease. We also wanted to let them know about a vital new government investment kicking off just around the corner from their studios.
The Individual Placement and Support trial, known as IPS, is a new initiative to better support young people with mental illness to find a job. The Turnbull government has committed more than $13.6 million for a three-year national trial of the IPS model as part of its youth employment strategy that is aimed at tackling high youth unemployment. Headspace in Gosford was one of the first to jump on board, and we held a launch—complete with a ceremonial cutting of the cake in Kibble Park at Gosford—with plenty of local media and community interest. We even had the incredible and talented crew from Musicians Making a Difference, who strummed away and performed from their portable stage—I have spoken about this incredible organisation before; it is a local Gosford organisation that does outstanding work in our community for young people, really striving to help them to achieve their potential through music.
The IPS trial, led locally by headspace Gosford manager Helen Isenhour and her team, will target vulnerable young people with mental illness up to the age of 25 who are at risk of long-term welfare dependency and disengaging from school and work. Gosford is one of 14 headspace sites throughout the country that will provide career development advice and vocational and employment assistance to jobseekers who need it most, working closely with clinical support and other non-vocational assistance. It is now underway and will run until 2019, with the aim of supporting up to 2,000 young people every year to help them reach their goals at one of the most vulnerable stages of their life.
Some of the data that backs up the IPS model is that around 70 per cent of mental health disorders develop by the age of 25. So it is absolutely vital that we equip these young people for the future and for their future. Thankfully, recent trials have found that people with mental illness are three times more likely to secure a job when supported by the IPS approach. So I commend headspace for leading the charge in this area, because if this means young people on the Central Coast battling mental illness are three times more likely to find and keep a job, they are making a significant impact on our region's future.
During the minister's visit we also hosted a round table for local mothers and carers of children with a disability. It was quite simply an extraordinary hour or so when we heard from deep within the hearts of these mothers, local people who need our support. There were stirring stories about how these beautiful, incredibly strong women cared for their children in what often felt like hard and dark times. From holding a job to the needs around respite care, we had plenty of issues to tackle. The conversations were honest and tough, but I have to say that there were incredible moments of joy as they shared some of the highlights of their experiences as well. Thank you to everyone who came and shared their story, including Lorraine Wilson, Sonya Peat, Elisa James, Joan Bailey, Sarah Harvey, Mary Kelly, Leila Doull, Liz Collins, Pamela Ohlrich and Elizabeth Cleasby. We also received letters from other passionate local women who could not make it, including Karen Rapley. My commitment to every one of these women was that we would follow up for each of them—and I have been so encouraged by the support and hard work of Minister Prentice and her office, who have already begun following through on these cases. I thank the minister very much. We are working towards holding a carers round table in our electorate in the coming weeks, where it is hoped we can continue this vital conversation.
Of course, much of this surrounds the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which I am pleased to say started in June this year, just as we committed to. Nearly 2,000 new jobs will be created across the Central Coast as the NDIS is fully rolled out. This includes a National Disability Insurance Agency office that has been established in Gosford, which we announced during the recent election campaign with the Minister for Social Services, the member for Pearce. This office alone will generate more than 40 new jobs for our electorate and provide a close, convenient point of contact in the city of Gosford regarding this incredibly important scheme.
Overall, $180 million will be invested in disability services across the Central Coast when the NDIS is rolled out. The primary beneficiaries, of course, will be the thousands of people in our region who are living with disability. Across education, employment, social participation, living arrangements, health and wellbeing more than 8,000 future participants across the Central Coast, including their families and carers, will be supported by the local NDIA office in Gosford. And this translates to delivering a better life and a better lifestyle for almost 2,900 participants in my electorate.
Such a scheme will, as we touched on in the carers round table, represent a significant change from the way disability services have traditionally been delivered. All participants and providers are still adjusting to some of the practical challenges that can cause some issues, including the need for preparation ahead of the NDIS workshops that are taking place. But the fact remains that the NDIS is one of the largest reforms in Australia's history. It gives people with disability the support they need to overcome challenges—and the transition is ongoing. So I encourage people across the Central Coast with a disability to visit the NDIS website to check their eligibility and to start thinking about how the scheme can help them achieve their goals.
Local businesses and service providers should also reach out to see how they can also take advantage of local opportunities. We have already seen great examples of businesses taking advantage of the Australian Disability Enterprise support from the government, including the incredible Fairhaven Services at Point Clare, Terama Industries at Gosford and Lasercraft Australia at West Gosford. With International Day of People with Disability fast approaching, I cannot think of a better time for our community to work together to raise awareness and promote this important issue. I commend these local initiatives and the work of the Turnbull government in promoting a brighter and more prosperous future for people with disability, and I commit to continuing to work to represent the families and businesses in my electorate in this area.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 192(b), the time for the grievance debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:29