The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:31): I present report No. 8 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 20 March 2017. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed at the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members ' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 28 February 2017.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 20 March 2017 as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR SHORTEN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Weekend Pay and Penalty Rates) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to restrict the export of live animals for slaughter pending its prohibition, and for related purposes. (Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
4 MS MCGOWAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Land Transport Act 2014, and for related purposes. (National Land Transport Amendment (Best Practice Rail Investment) Bill 2017)
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
5 MS O ' TOOLE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) families in regional and rural Australia rely on penalty rates to survive;
(b) the Fair Work Commission's (FWC's) decision to cut penalty rates will hurt retail and hospitality workers and their families in regional and rural Australia;
(c) the take home pay of families in regional and rural Australia will be severely impacted as a result of the FWC's decision to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers;
(d) cutting penalty rates in regional and rural areas would also have a devastating flow-on impact for regional economies; and
(e) the McKell institute estimates that disposable income in regional areas will fall by between $174.6 and $748.3 million if penalty rates are cut in hospitality and retail awards;
(2) condemns Government Members and Senators who called for cuts to penalty rates and their continuous pressuring of the FWC to reduce penalty rates; and
(3) calls on:
(a) Government Members and Senators to stand with Labor to protect low paid workers take home pay; and
(b) the House to support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, to amend the Fair Work Act 2009.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms O ' Toole—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 MR HASTIE: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the strong historic relationship that exists between Australia and the United States of America;
(2) acknowledges the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, which for the past 65 years has provided for our mutual defence, anchored regional stability, and spurred economic growth;
(3) notes the many ties that bind our nations together, in areas including:
(a) intelligence and law enforcement, where information sharing and coordination are at all-time highs, which has led to the prevention of far more terrorist attacks than have occurred;
(b) security cooperation, in which Australia has made valuable contributions in the past 15 years to the United States-led campaigns against terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and across the Middle East, noting as well that the United States Force Posture Initiatives in Australia, launched in 2012, have and will continue to enhance the readiness and interoperability of our militaries;
(c) trade, with the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement in particular having expanded the flow of fair, free, and high-standard trade between our countries for 12 years;
(d) investment, recognising that the United States is Australia's largest foreign investor, and the top destination for Australian investment, with mutual investment by the United States and Australia in each other's economies having grown to nearly AUD$2 trillion; and
(e) political engagement, including the frequent exchange of politicians, officials and dignitaries between our nations, recognising in particular that over the last three years alone, the President, Vice President, and half of the President's cabinet has visited Australia, as well as more than 100 congressional delegations and prominent United States governors; and
(4) affirms that our nations' mutual and long-standing commitment to freedom, democracy and the pursuit of happiness will continue to guide and shape our relationship into the future, through both challenging and prosperous times ahead.
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Mr Hastie—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS CLAYDON: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that International Women's Day:
(a) was celebrated on Thursday 8 March, with this year's theme being Be Bold for Change; and
(b) is an important time to reflect on Australia's achievements in advancing gender equality, but also recommit to action to break through remaining barriers, including:
(i) gender pay inequity, which has remained unbalanced for two decades and currently sits at 17 per cent;
(ii) representation of women in leadership, with gender equality in the Federal Parliament not likely to be achieved until 2046 on the current trajectory; and
(iii) violence against women, which results in one Australian woman being killed by a partner or former partner on average every week;
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) stand up for female workers and oppose cuts to penalty rates that will exacerbate the existing gender pay gap;
(b) abandon plans to cut Paid Parental Leave which will see 70,000 new mothers worse off each year;
(c) rule out cuts to women's refuges currently funded through the National Affordable Housing Agreement; and
(d) abandon cuts to community legal centres that assist women and children escaping family violence.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Claydon—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MS M. L. LANDRY: To move:
That this House notes that:
(1) the Australian coal industry plays a vital role in the creation of jobs and investment in this country, particularly in central Queensland;
(2) coal-fired power stations have an ongoing role in Australia in ensuring consistent, affordable and safe supply of electricity for all Australians;
(3) while acknowledging the current and future growth of renewable energy sources in Australia, energy sourced from coal will continue to be a major contributor to our national energy output for the foreseeable future; and
(4) major resource company directors in Australia have flagged concerns that a lack of 'energy security' in Australia would make major minerals and resources projects unviable, deterring future international investment and harming jobs and growth.
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms M. L. Landry—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MS T. M. BUTLER: To move:
That this House:
(1) commends the work funded by the Australian Development Assistance program through bilateral, multilateral and non-government organisation partners like Save the Children, to strengthen governance, democracy and vulnerable communities across Myanmar;
(2) is cognisant of and concurs with international concern about the marginalisation and displacement of Muslims in Rakhine State in Myanmar, particularly since 2012;
(3) expresses its grave concern about the coordinated attacks on Border Guard Police posts of 9 October 2016, at three locations in northern Rakhine State, and:
(a) offers its condolences to the families of the nine police officers who were killed and to the Myanmar people;
(b) abhors the violence and the theft of guns and ammunition; and
(c) asserts that those responsible for such a heinous crime should be brought to justice;
(4) observes also that in the interests of democracy, peace, security and human rights, the rule of law should be upheld in Rakhine State, and calls on security forces to conduct security operations in a manner that does not marginalise or displace people in Rakhine State;
(5) notes:
(a) the very real risk that excessive use of force may have on the effect of radicalising and further marginalising the Muslim community in Rakhine State, increasing conflict and hampering efforts to achieve peaceful outcomes; and
(b) with deep concern, the report on 3 February 2017 from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on reported human rights violations occurring in northern Rakhine State;
(6) acknowledges:
(a) the national-level bodies established to investigate reports of human rights abuses in northern Rakhine State and urges them to undertake credible, thorough and impartial investigations;
(b) the work of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, and commends the Myanmar State Counsellor (MSC) for meeting with the Special Rapporteur; and
(c) also the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, and commends the MSC for having established that Commission; and
(7) calls upon the civilian government, military, and parliament of Myanmar to redouble their efforts to end the marginalisation and displacement of Muslims in Rakhine State, and to seek to create conditions in which all residents of Rakhine State can live peacefully, can have access to education and healthcare, and can have freedom of movement.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms T. M. Butler—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR L. S. O ' BRIEN: To move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the findings of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, which found 'widespread and deep-seated' misconduct by union officials;
(2) recognises the outstanding work of the Trade Union Joint Police Taskforce (Taskforce) in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, which are investigating 34 referrals of alleged criminal breaches from the Royal Commission;
(3) calls on the Queensland Government to overturn the decision to withdraw from participating in the Taskforce; and
(4) condemns the Queensland Government and Australian Labor Party for putting their union mates before Queensland's lowest paid and most vulnerable workers.
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr L. S. O ' Brien—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
5 MR B. K. MITCHELL: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the retail trades industry is the second largest employment category in Australia;
(b) one third of workers in the retail trade industry are between 15 to 24 years of age;
(c) the Fair Work Commission's (FWC's) decision to cut penalty rates in the retail trade will disproportionately affect young people;
(d) the take home pay of young retail workers will be severely hit as a result of the FWC's decision to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for young retail workers;
(e) cutting penalty rates for young retail workers increases cost of living pressures as many are studying during the week; and
(f) young retail workers will have to work longer hours for the same pay, with less time to study;
(2) condemns Government Members and Senators who called for cuts to penalty rates and their continuous pressuring of the FWC to reduce penalty rates; and
(3) calls on:
(a) Government Members and Senators to stand with Labor to protect low paid workers take home pay; and
(b) the House to support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, to amend the Fair Work Act 2009.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr B. K. Mitchell—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 MS FLINT: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there are 2.1 million small businesses in Australia, accounting for 97 per cent of businesses in Australia;
(b) the small business sector employs almost five million Australians;
(c) Australia's small businesses are at their best when Australians shop locally;
(d) the Government has:
(i) a plan to cut taxes for Australia's small businesses;
(ii) backed small business with access to the $20,000 instant asset write-off programme;
(iii) a plan to increase by 90,000, the number of small businesses to which this programme applies; and
(iv) levelled the playing field for small businesses online through changes to GST on purchases from overseas; and
(e) small business confidence was at a six-year high in January 2017; and
(2) calls on all Australians to:
(a) continue to support Australia's small business sector by shopping locally;
(b) use local providers of goods and services—including those online—to drive future job creation, higher wages and better opportunities for Australians;
(c) take advantage of changes to Australia's Country of Origin labelling system to buy Australian products; and
(d) think local first with every dollar they spend.
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Flint—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 MR HILL: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that Australian citizenship is precious and the community must have confidence that the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 is administered fairly, impartially and with integrity;
(b) that the law provides that Australian citizenship by conferral is available to everyone who meets the legislated criteria, regardless of visa class; and
(c) the enormous, inexplicable and unconscionable delays by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in processing thousands of citizenship applications;
(2) acknowledges the devastating impact of delays and uncertainty on affected people, whose lives are in limbo, whose mental health is suffering, who are often unable to travel and who have been separated from their family for many years;
(3) notes the Federal Court of Australia in BMF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] case which:
(a) found that there had been unreasonable delays in the department's processing of citizenship applications of two men on protection visas who had been waiting 18 months and 23 months, respectively;
(b) received evidence from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection that more than 10,000 applications requiring 'further assessment' were outstanding as of July 2016, yet only 12 officers in the department were even trained to assess these applications; and
(c) noted that the evidence provided suggested that something beyond resourcing of the citizenship program had caused very significant delays, and that the possibility of applications being ordered by reference to an 'unreasonable rationale' could not be excluded; and
(4) calls on the Government to:
(a) admit to and apologise for these delays;
(b) take immediate action to process the full backlog of citizenship applications this year; and
(c) publicly assure affected people and the wider community that the citizenship function will be administered fairly, impartially and expeditiously in the future.
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Hill—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
8 MR VAN MANEN: To move:
That this House:
(1) denounces the Queensland Government's underinvestment in infrastructure throughout the state;
(2) notes that:
(a) the Queensland Government:
(i) has savagely cut infrastructure spending in Queensland, sapping confidence and costing jobs; and
(ii) slashed infrastructure spending by more than $2 billion in its first year in office;
(b) over the next four years, infrastructure spending has been cut by almost $3 billion; and
(c) the Queensland Government:
(i) has not funded one new major infrastructure project in two years in office; and
(ii) is more interested in political point scoring than working collaboratively with the Australian Government on new infrastructure projects; and
(3) calls on the Queensland Government to reverse this concerning trend and deliver infrastructure that the people of Queensland require and the Queensland economy desperately needs.
(Notice given 27 February 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr van Manen—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Member for Fowler
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (09:31): On indulgence, Mr Speaker—and the Manager of Opposition Business might wish to comment as well.
The SPEAKER: No doubt this is on the matter that you raised with me earlier.
Mr PYNE: Indeed, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Yes, that is right. The Leader of the House may proceed.
Mr PYNE: I wanted to say this on Monday—but I neglected to do so through an oversight—when the Manager of Opposition Business moved a leave of absence for the member for Fowler, who has had a serious accident. On behalf of the government: in spite of him being in the wrong tribe in this place, Chris Hayes is a very decent fellow, and we wish him very much the best in his recovery from his motorcycle accident. We hope he comes back healthier but perhaps less effective as the chief whip for the Labor Party in the future! But he is a very decent fellow, and our heart goes out to him and to his family. We hope that he has a full and complete recovery.
The SPEAKER (09:32): A lot of us have affection for the member concerned. I of course work closely with him. I hope he is recuperating and not listening to the broadcast!
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:33): Mr Speaker, I presume that, if he is following your advice, that will help him with his recovery! We wish Chris very well. He has been the most successful Chief Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives for a generation. We have certainly been in touch with his family. It is a difficult time for them, but, importantly, every day Chris is on the mend. We look forward to him returning as soon as possible.
The SPEAKER: I thank both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:34): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to introduce the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill. This delivers on the final element of the government's election commitment to protect vulnerable workers.
We know that the majority of employers do the right thing, but it is also apparent that there are some cases of widespread underpayment or coercion of workers, such as the well-publicised exploitation of workers by some 7-Eleven franchisees. These are the instances this bill seeks to address.
The bill introduces higher penalties for 'serious contraventions' of payment-related workplace laws, which will apply where the underpayments or other breaches are deliberate and systematic. The penalties for these contraventions will be 10 times higher than usual. This will not apply to genuine mistakes, but only deliberate and systematic breaches.
The bill also prohibits employers asking for 'cash back' from their employees. It is of concern to this government that instances have occurred where some young workers have been led from their workplaces to the nearest ATM, and forced to hand back part of their wages in cash. Our amendments will make it clear that this type of practice is unlawful, and employees can get their wages back.
The bill will also clarify the accessorial liability provisions to make them more effective. These changes will ensure that franchisors and holding companies that exercise significant control over their franchisees or subsidiaries will be responsible for underpayments where they turned a blind eye or were complicit in such a breach.
Where the franchisor or holding company should have known of the breach, or a similar breach, but did not take reasonable steps to try to prevent it then they may be liable for the underpayments.
We also recognise that not all franchise networks are the same and not all franchisors will be in a position to influence or control the employment practices of their franchisees. That is why the bill does not mandate a particular requirement for companies who do exercise this control. What is appropriate in any particular case will depend on the size, resources and control exercised by a particular business and what steps they are already taking to encourage compliance with the law within their corporate networks. In many cases, existing measures will be sufficient and there will be no need to take any further action.
The Fair Work Ombudsman will provide advice for businesses seeking further information about the provisions.
The bill will not absolve franchisees or subsidiaries of their responsibility under workplace laws. These employers will remain liable for any breach of the Fair Work Act under existing laws. A franchisor or holding company that is required to rectify underpayments will also be given a statutory right to recover any amounts paid from the franchisee or subsidiary, ensuring that the direct employer continues to be liable for the breach, or can use contractual arrangements to recover in the case of a settlement.
These changes will not hold companies liable for mistakes. The Fair Work Ombudsman is required to act as a model litigant and will pursue prosecution only in cases where penalties are appropriate.
Finally, the bill strengthens the Fair Work Ombudsman's evidence gathering powers to ensure that deliberate and systematic contraventions of workplace laws can be effectively investigated—even if there is no paper trail.
The bill provides the Fair Work Ombudsman with powers similar to those held by other regulators such as ASIC and ACCC. These powers will allow the ombudsman to compel a person to provide information or answer questions if all other avenues of investigation fail. These powers will be accompanied by safeguards to ensure they are used appropriately and consistently.
The bill also expressly prohibits anyone from hindering or obstructing an investigator, or giving the Fair Work Ombudsman false or misleading information or documents.
Combined with the $20.1 million in funding the government has restored to the Fair Work Ombudsman, after Labor ripped away 17 per cent of its funding when in government, our workplace regulator will now be well placed to identify worker exploitation.
The regulator will also be in a position to support businesses, especially franchisors, franchisees and small businesses, to understand these changes and take any necessary simple steps to ensure that their networks are aware of their obligations under the Fair Work Act.
The development of this bill has been informed by evidence from numerous reports and inquiries as well as extensive consultation with community, employer and employee representatives.
I trust that all those in this place who share the government's commitment to stamping out worker exploitation will support our amendments and respect the decision of the Australian community to endorse our policy at the 2016 election.
Debate adjourned.
Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government is introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017because we are committed to continually improving Australia's workplace relations system.
This bill will respond to a number of sensible recommendations made by the Productivity Commission inquiry into the workplace relations framework, as well as by the report of inquiry into matters concerning former Vice-President Michael Lawler of the Fair Work Commission, conducted by former Federal Court judge, the Hon. Peter Heerey AM QC. The bill will:
repeal the requirement for four-yearly reviews of modern awards;
provide the Fair Work Commission the ability to overlook minor or technical procedural errors made during enterprise bargaining, where it is satisfied that an error or defect is not likely to have disadvantaged employees; and
provide for greater scrutiny of the performance and conduct of Fair Work Commission members, which will improve accountability and strengthen public confidence in this institution.
With this bill, the government is continuing to implement commonsense reforms to the workplace relations system to reduce complexity and costs.
There is broad support for reforms to repeal four-yearly reviews. In November 2016, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Council of Trade Unions jointly wrote to the Minister for Employment, asking the government to abolish these reviews.
Abolishing the reviews is also consistent with recommendation 8.1 of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into the workplace relations system. The commission found that the reviews are 'hugely resource intensive for all involved'.
Employee groups, employer groups and the Fair Work Commission spend an enormous amount of time and money in undertaking these reviews. Their abolition will save employers and unions about $87 million over the next 10 years. This amount represents a significant regulatory burden.
To ensure an appropriate transition period, the bill will allow the current four-yearly review to conclude in a timely manner under the existing framework. Importantly, it will remove the requirement for a new review to commence in January 2018.
In addition to this important change, the bill also responds to Productivity Commission recommendation 20.1, by amending the Fair Work Act to allow the Fair Work Commission to overlook minor procedural or technical errors when approving an enterprise agreement, as long as it is satisfied that the employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the error.
Currently, the Fair Work Commission is handcuffed. Proscriptive, inflexible rules set out in the Fair Work Act mean that inconsequential procedural or technical errors made during bargaining prevent it from approving an enterprise agreement. This means that fundamentally sound enterprise agreements which have received broad support from employees are being knocked back because undue emphasis has been placed on procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act.
The Productivity Commission's report highlighted an infamous case where an agreement was rejected because the employer stapled additional pages to the Notice of Employee Representational Rights form. This was considered to be a deviation from the prescribed notice and the additional stapled content invalidated the entire bargaining process.
This overly strict approach to the procedural requirements in enterprise bargaining has resulted in some ridiculous outcomes. For example, the Fair Work Commission has rejected enterprise agreements where an employer printed the notice onto a piece of paper with the company letterhead on it and inadvertently provided the incorrect telephone number for the Fair Work Commission infoline.
The government is therefore proposing to introduce a commonsense reform to give the Fair Work Commission the capacity to approve enterprise agreements despite minor procedural or technical errors made during enterprise bargaining, as long as the errors were not likely to have disadvantaged employees. This amendment will not give carte blanche to employers to ignore the proper processes. What it will do is ensure that minor procedural or technical mistakes in bargaining do not unduly prevent the approval of enterprise agreements that employers and employees have genuinely agreed to. This is a win for everyone.
The bill will also implement the sensible reforms suggested by Mr Heerey following his inquiry into complaints about former Fair Work Commission Vice-President Michael Lawler. The saga of former Vice-President Lawler revealed that there is no formal mechanism to inform the parliament's consideration of allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity against Fair Work Commission members.
Mr Heerey also noted that there is some doubt about whether the complaint-handling powers of the minister and the Fair Work Commission president in the Fair Work Act apply to Fair Work Commission members who formerly held office in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
The bill will clarify that the complaint-handling powers of the Minister for Employment and the President of the Fair Work Commission apply to all Fair Work Commission members. The bill will also apply the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Act 2012 in relation to allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity concerning Fair Work Commission members, so that the parliament can quickly establish an inquiry into such allegations and be well informed of any case for asking the Governor-General to terminate their appointment.
The bill is sensible, fair and broadly supported, and I commend it to the House.
The SPEAKER: The debate must now be adjourned.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:45): Mr Speaker, we are ready to go on this bill, so I am happy to give leave to the government for the debate on the bill to proceed immediately.
The SPEAKER: The debate must be adjourned, though.
Mr BURKE: In that case, I seek leave to move the following motion:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 proceeding immediately, the bill being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages without interruption, and if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 12 pm on Wednesday, 1 March 2017, any detailed amendments that have been circulated prior to 12 pm being deemed to have been moved and any necessary questions to complete consideration of the bill being put without delay.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:46): Mr Speaker, we are not going to support some union Labor stunt, so leave is not granted.
Leave not granted.
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:46): Mr Speaker, that was odd on a bill that we just heard was apparently supported by employers and unions. I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 proceeding immediately, the bill being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages without interruption, and if consideration of the bill has not concluded by 12 pm on Wednesday, 1 March 2017, any detailed amendments that have been circulated prior to 12 pm being deemed to have been moved and any necessary questions to complete consideration of the bill being put without delay.
I never thought I would see a moment where we had a minister in this government describe proceeding with the passage of their own legislation as a 'union Labor stunt'. But that is the argument that has just been put by the minister.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:47): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
The House divided. [09:51]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:56): Is the motion seconded? The member for Grayndler. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:56): I move that he be no longer heard. He has said enough already!
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. I called for the motion to be seconded.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (09:57): I second the motion. The fact is: they will do anything to avoid talking about—
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:57): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Grayndler be no further heard.
The House divided. [09:58]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:00): The question now is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The debate must now be adjourned.
The House divided. [10:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:07): Mr Speaker, a member of the government will have to move it. We do not want to adjourn the debate; we are ready to debate their agenda, and they do not want to.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. I said the debate must now be adjourned. I am not interested in hearing from people who do not want to adjourn the debate.
Debate adjourned.
Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Keenan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (10:08): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017 progresses urgently needed reform of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 to minimise the impact of the PPS regime particularly on small and medium Australian businesses.
The Personal Property Securities Act was introduced with bipartisan support in 2009. A cornerstone of this reform was the establishment of the Personal Property Securities Register. This introduced a single national system for the creation, registration, priority and enforcement of security interests in personal property.
The PPS regime has increased the range of property available to secure finance, especially for small businesses, while providing greater confidence to lenders and securing their interests.
The PPS regime has replaced 23 state, territory and Commonwealth property and securities registers and over 70 pieces of supporting legislation.
This alone involved the migration of 4.7 million registrations to the new, national Personal Property Securities Register. Reform on this scale is not without its challenges.
Ongoing assessment and adjustment where necessary is important to ensure that the PPS system meets the needs of the Australian marketplace.
In consultation with Australian businesses and particularly the hire and rental industry, it became clear that although the PPS Act was an important initiative, it has created several challenges for small business in particular. These include the imposition of significant administrative burden and substantial compliance costs, which does need to be addressed.
Small and family businesses which do not have the resources to meet this significant burden are vulnerable to the risk of losing critical business assets. For example, under the Act as it stands, if a hire business fails to register a PPS lease (or registers incorrectly) and the lessee becomes insolvent while in possession of the goods, the goods vest in the insolvent estate of the lessee.
While this arrangement is important to protect creditors and ensure that notice of a security interest is made available to the prospective lenders of purchasers, in the small business context and especially for the equipment hire industry, the combination of this administrative burden and the risk of losing key business assets, creates an imminent need for reform.
This is why the government proposes to adjust the rules under the framework which deem certain leases to be security interests for the purposes of the PPS Act. These include leases of goods for a term of more than 12 months or for an indefinite term.
Since its commencement, it has become clear that these deeming provisions have created a disproportionate risk to small business in the short term hire and rental sector. Many Australian businesses which lease goods to customers for short periods of time permit their customers to use the goods for as long as they need them. It often does not make sense for a hire business to insist on fixed terms for the lease of a chain saw or cement mixer, for example. If the customer needs the goods for an extra day or a week, the lessor needs the flexibility to accommodate this without an onerous administrative burden.
The Bill will amend the Act's definition of PPS Lease to ensure that it captures only leases which are long enough to necessitate registration on the PPS Register to meet the Act's policy objectives. Leases with an indefinite term will only require registration once they have exceeded two years in length. Similarly, fixed term leases will only require registration if they are for a term of more than two years.
The framework will continue to appropriately capture some longer term, high value hire industry leases by not imposing a blanket exemption on the whole of the industry. Adjusting the PPS lease time frame will lift the burden on the hire and rental industry and importantly have a minimal impact on the operation of the rest of the PPS framework.
The regulatory burden imposed on the industry by the PPS Act in its current form is more than is necessary for the achievement of effective and certain secured lending against personal property in Australia. It does not make sense for a lease which runs for three days instead of two to require registration on the PPS Register. Businesses for which high volumes of short but indefinite term leases are central to their business model often struggle to meet the administrative burden imposed by the Act.
This measure will provide relief to industries covered by the PPS Act and, in particular, the hire and rental industry, an important industry with a total turnover of around $6.6 billion that employs over 18,000 Australians and provides essential support to the building and construction sectors. It is expected to reduce the number of registrations that may need to be made and free business using these types of leases from the risks associated with absent or incorrect registrations.
Finally, on behalf of the government, I wish to extend thanks to our state and territory counterparts for their support in developing this measure. The PPS regime is underpinned by a referral of powers from the states and the reform process is governed by an intergovernmental agreement which requires that all reforms must be assented to by state and territory governments prior to introduction. Without the support and cooperation of state and territory Attorneys-General and ministers for justice, reform to this important area of economic regulation would not have been possible.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017
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:
(1) declines to give the bill a second reading because it will hurt pensioners, families, new mums and young Australians while holding child care assistance and the National Disability Insurance Scheme to ransom; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) drop their unfair cuts to pensioners, families, new mums and young Australians; and
(b) fix their child care changes so that vulnerable and disadvantaged children are not worse off and Indigenous and country services do not face closure.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (10:16): The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, as is well known, reintroduces major reforms under the government's Jobs for Families Child Care Package with a range of new and some previously introduced social services measures which have been designed to improve the sustainability of the government payment system. With respect to the significant and much-needed childcare reform set out in this bill, the government has clearly outlined a funded, long-term and very substantial reform plan which delivers support for families and for their children while maintaining sustainable supports for both working Australians and jobseekers.
I thank all of the members for their contributions during the course of the second reading debate and note a few comments with respect to those contributions, in particular a number of specific issues. Some of those indeed focused heavily on the childcare reforms in this bill. By way of overarching summary, the bill will deliver a simpler, more affordable childcare system—a system which, if reformed, will benefit close to one million Australian families. The bill would also deliver an increase in family tax benefit A fortnightly rates by $20 per child, which would help more than 1.2 million families better manage their weekly budgets. The bill will also provide an additional two weeks of government funded paid parental leave to almost 100,000 low-income mothers every year.
At the heart of this bill is the Jobs for Families Child Care Package. The Jobs for Families Child Care Package will deliver much-needed root-and-branch reform to create a simpler, more affordable, more accessible and more flexible early education and childcare system in Australia. Those reform would ensure that low- and middle-income families would be the greatest beneficiaries of much-needed changes. The reforms proposed would allow families to choose their child care around their work rather than limiting their work hours to suit their child care. It is presently estimated that the package would encourage more than 230,000 Australian families to increase their involvement in paid employment. It is worth pausing for a moment just to note that there are close to a quarter of a million Australian families who cite the fact that child care has become too expensive and too inflexible as the reason why they are not able to engage in the workforce at all or are prevented from having further and greater engagement in the workforce. That really is nothing short of a tragedy for those families. Our early education and childcare reforms have been the subject of extensive consultation conducted primarily by the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. Simon Birmingham, and they will direct the greatest support to those families working the most hours and earning the least.
While dealing with the childcare component of this bill, it is necessary, as I foreshadowed, to address the contributions made by some members, firstly, as they relate to the budget based funding model regarding child care. A number of speakers—particularly the member for Indi—referenced the budget based funding model, including mobile services that deliver early childhood education and care in remote communities.
In the proposed new system, the reformed childcare system, budget based funding model services, or BBF services, including mobile services, would be able to access three streams of funding. Firstly, those services would be able to receive income from the childcare subsidy, which will increase as the number of eligible children in attendance increases. Secondly, the additional childcare subsidy will provide higher subsidies to support eligible families based on their individual needs. Thirdly, we recognise that BBF services, including mobile services, cannot be funded on a one-size-fits-all approach. Accordingly, those services will be able to seek supplementary, tailored sustainability funding under the Community Child Care Fund.
The Community Child Care Fund will comprise $110 million annually. It will be flexible and will respond to individual circumstances and challenges that are faced by childcare services. This will particularly help services that need additional financial support to maintain operations. Childcare services will be able to apply for funding to supplement any fee income available through the CCS and the ACCS, in order to ensure that services have as much certainty as possible. We will include capacity for three- to five-year funding agreements to assist services with long-term planning, and to provide greater security of funding.
I understand that the Minister for Education and Training has discussed with the member for Indi that the government is committed to publishing the CCCF guidelines by 1 July 2017. The Department of Education has commissioned PwC to carry out individual reports for each of the BBF services around the country. These are place based reports that reflect the BBF's current work and identify the additional funding that each BBF will need in order to maintain their current service level.
In addition, the government will commence a post-implementation review within 12 months of the package commencing, which will include a key rural and regional focus as a result of the advocacy of the member for Indi. From day 1, data will be collected to ensure that the implementation and impacts of the reforms are understood, allowing for the early identification and resolution of any emerging unintended consequences, including in respect of BBF services.
Many opposition members also made a variety of comments around the activity test, which is at the heart of the childcare reforms and which is introduced as part of the childcare reforms contained in this omnibus bill. The government has been quite clear and consistently clear on the fact that the activity test is a key part of what can be a greatly improved system of child care for Australian families. Under current arrangements, families need not demonstrate any activity at all in order to receive 24 hours of subsidised care a week. In order to deliver increased hours, availability and support to those families who are reliant on child care to work, to train, to study or to volunteer, the government considers it is necessary to establish reasonable limitations on the support to those who do not use child care to work, to train, to study or to volunteer. The Turnbull government stands by the principle that childcare support, heavily subsidised as it is by the taxpayer, must in its operation give preference to those who are working, training, studying or volunteering.
Indeed, one of the many positive components of this childcare package that was failed to be mentioned by many members opposite is that its new compliance powers further strengthen the government's efforts to clamp down on fraud. This will include the power to pause childcare service applications for fee assistance to help excessive growth within a particular childcare service type where there are concerns about proven or alleged rorting. This measure in fact builds on this government's very strong record on compliance in the childcare sector.
But, unfortunately, some members have never shown a strong interest in compliance. Under the previous government in the two years to June 2013, there were no cancellations and no suspensions, and only two relevant fines issued. In 2012-13, the Labor government carried out only 523 compliance checks; while in the last financial year the coalition government carried out 3,100 of those compliance checks. This has contributed to the cost of the government's Jobs for Families Child Care Package being revised to the $1.6 billion that we have before us today, and it has allowed the government to increase family tax benefit A fortnightly rates by $20 per child for more than 1.2 million families.
The bill also introductions a two-year trial of incentives aimed at increasing the number of eligible jobseekers who undertake horticultural seasonal work, such as fruit picking, and those incentives will help the Australian horticultural industry by increasing the number of unemployed Australians who participate in seasonal work and provide jobseekers with a practical opportunity to enter the workforce and to build work experience and skills.
And, consistently with being financially responsible, the government is of course determined to ensure that these spending measures—both those very substantial measures in childcare reform and those around the trial of incentives aimed at increasing the number of eligible jobseekers—are paid for. The Jobs for Families Child Care Package will be implemented using the savings in this bill from reforms to the family payments system. Those reforms to the family payments system will ensure that more than 1.2 million families receive an increase of $20 per fortnight per child to help with their week-to-week living expenses.
The government has been absolutely clear and consistent in outlining its fiscal strategy to strengthen the government's budget sheet and assist a return to surplus by redirecting spending to boost productivity and workforce participation. In this case, that is achieved by investing taxpayer money that would be saved inside the family tax benefit system, most notably in closing down end-of-year supplements and reinvesting that money in the significant reforms to child care that have already been highlighted and that are at the heart of this bill.
To ensure that we are managing our budget responsibly, this bill also includes a range of other savings which have been identified in the Social Services portfolio. These savings help ensure the long-term sustainability of the payments system and ensure that Australia has a targeted income support system that provides financial assistance to those most in need while encouraging workforce participation and self-reliance. Budget responsibility is a responsibility to the present generation of young Australians, who will become the next generation of Australian taxpayers.
The government's paid parental leave measures provide greater support for mothers with no access to employer parental leave schemes. They seek to balance taxpayer-paid parental leave with employer-funded leave to make the payment fairer for all mothers by ensuring that all mothers would have access to at least 20 weeks to spend time with their newborns before returning to work. That is up from 18 weeks. From 1 January 2018, the maximum number of weeks of government-provided parental leave pay would be increased from 18 to 20 weeks. This means that almost 100,000 eligible mothers each year who do not have access to employer-provided paid parental leave would receive an additional two weeks of leave or an approximate amount of $1,300. These low-income mothers have a median income of $43,000, and 91 per cent of those mothers work in the private sector.
In addition, the bill amends the work test for paid parental leave eligibility. That helps employees such as casual teachers and women in physical professions such as building, horseracing, mining and construction to join the system for the first time. In 2011, there were 1.23 million female employees in casual jobs. There were 30,798 women working in mining and 109,705 women working in construction. They all stand potentially to benefit from the government's proposed changes to the work test.
For many opposite to assert themselves as the party of low-income support and then stand in the way of increasing access and providing an additional two weeks to some of the lowest paid mothers in Australia is, I think, plain wrong. As to the argument that employers would pull back their own paid parental leave schemes, that was an argument, ironically, that was also raised before the Paid Parental Leave scheme was introduced first in 2011, and it simply never eventuated. What experience has shown is that employers retain their current paid primary carer leave arrangements or improve them. That is, naturally enough, because, unlike paid parental leave pay, most employer schemes are at replacement wage, and many employer schemes can be taken at half pay, increasing the amount of time that parents can take away from work.
In response to concerns raised with respect to the automation of the income stream review process contained in this bill: this measure is not about data matching, nor is it a compliance measure. It enables the Department of Human Services to more efficiently receive current income stream review information directly from income stream providers through reducing double handling and the need for income stream providers to provide information to recipients, which they in turn presently have to provide to the Department of Human Services.
The government will contribute more than $4 billion in savings contained in this bill to the NDIS Savings Fund Special Account, when established, to ensure that Labor's $4.1 billion NDIS funding gap, which occurs in 2019-20 and which grows to over $7 billion each and every year, will be met without increasing taxes or accumulating more debt.
Many of these savings measures have been previously presented to the parliament, and they have been supported by a number of Senate inquiries. The government certainly urges all members of parliament who have opposed some of these measures in the past to consider how these measures represent responsible government spending, how they drive sustainability into the system and how they encourage workforce participation and self-reliance. Together, the measures in this bill will assist in simplifying the payments system and support future welfare reform, and they are in the best interests of working Australians. In the current fiscal context, they represent the best possible way to reform, in a very substantial way, Australia's childcare system. 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 Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The House divided. [10:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:40): The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
The House divided. [10:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:47): I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending, in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution, an appropriation for the purposes of this bill.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:48): I move the amendments circulated in my name:
(1) Schedule 4, page 233 (after line 10), after item 235, insert:
235A After section 232
Insert:
232A Community Child Care Fund—guidelines for funding
(1) The Secretary must, no later than 1 July 2017, publish on the Department's website guidelines outlining the criteria that will be used in determining how funding will be allocated from the Community Child Care Fund.
(2) The Minister must table before each House of the Parliament, on the next sitting day of the House after the guidelines are published under subsection (1), a copy of the guidelines.
232B Community Child Care Fund—assessment of likely impact on rural and regional areas
(1) The Secretary must, no later than 1 July 2017:
(a) conduct an assessment of the impact that the replacement of the Budget Based Funded Program with the Community Child Care Fund will have on communities in rural and regional Australia (the rural and regional impact assessment); and
(b) publish a report of the rural and regional impact assessment on the Department's website.
(2) The rural and regional impact assessment must include, for each rural or regional area of each State and Territory of Australia:
(a) a statement of the number of child care places that will be available in the area under the Budget Based Funded Program on 1 July 2017, as compared with the number of child care places that will be available under the Community Child Care Fund on 1 July 2018; and
(b) an estimate of the number of child care services in the area that will cease to operate during the financial year beginning on 1 July 2017 (if any); and
(c) an estimate of the number of child care services that will begin to operate in the area during the financial year beginning on 1 July 2017 (if any); and
(d) an assessment of any other impacts that the replacement of the Budget Based Funded Program with the Community Child Care Fund will have on communities in the area.
(3) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine the way in which rural and regional areas in the States and Territories are to be identified for the purposes of carrying out the rural and regional impact assessment.
(4) In conducting the rural and regional impact assessment, the Secretary must consult with community groups representing communities in each rural or regional area of each State or Territory of Australia in relation to which the assessment is conducted.
(5) The Minister must table before each House of the Parliament, on the next sitting day of the House after a report of the rural and regional impact assessment is published under paragraph (1) (b), a copy of the report.
232C 2017 child care reforms—continuing assessment of impact
(1) The Secretary must assess the impact of the 2017 child care reforms on communities in rural and regional Australia on an ongoing basis, and publish those assessments, in accordance with this section.
(2) The assessments must relate to each financial year beginning on and after 1 July 2018.
(3) The assessments must include, for each rural or regional area of each State and Territory of Australia:
(a) a statement of the number of child care places that were available in the area during the relevant financial year; and
(b) an assessment of whether any more child care places were needed in the area during the relevant financial year and, if so, how many and where; and
(c) an estimate of the number of child care services in the area that ceased to operate during the relevant financial year (if any); and
(d) an estimate of the number of child care services that began operating in the area during the relevant financial year (if any); and
(e) an assessment of any other impacts that the 2017 child care reforms have had on communities in the area during the relevant financial year.
(4) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine the way in which rural and regional areas in the States and Territories are to be identified for the purposes of carrying out the assessment.
(5) In conducting the assessment, the Secretary must consult with community groups representing communities in each rural or regional area of each State or Territory of Australia in relation to which the assessment is conducted.
(6) The assessment for a financial year must be published on the Department's website within 2 months after the end of the year.
(7) The Minister must table a copy of the assessment for a financial year before each House of the Parliament, on the next sitting day of the House after the assessment is published on the Department's website.
(8) In this section:
2017 child care reforms means:
(a) the child care subsidy; and
(b) the additional child care subsidy; and
(c) the Community Child Care Fund; and
(d) the Inclusion Support Programme.
[greater transparency in 2017 child care reforms]
Minister, it is lovely to see you here. I welcome your comments, and thank you for your assurance. I move these amendments because I think it is really important that we include, in a public and transparent way, some of the agreements that have been reached between myself and the various government representatives. The amendments proposed are intended to hold the government to account—in particular, I am talking about the childcare amendments—and to ensure that we have ongoing support for rural and regional services.
To my colleagues opposite, I would really absolutely request that you have a look at these amendments and that if you are going to vote against them do so in full knowledge about what you would be rejecting. The amendments put a timeline on the publication of guidelines for the Community Child Care Fund to 1 July 2017 to ensure the sector has certainty ahead of transition. They require a regional impact assessment of the replacement of the Budget Based Funding Program—what that will have on communities in rural and regional Australia—by 1 July. They provide for a review of the childcare package as a whole with regard to the impact on communities in rural and regional Australia on an ongoing basis, with the first reporting period to be 1 July 2018 to 1 July 2019.
In the short term, these amendments will ensure service providers have certainty about the government's plans and will keep a spotlight on the implementation of the childcare package. The amendments will shine a light on the impacts of this package in rural and regional communities by requiring the department to complete a rural and regional impact assessment. This assessment should have occurred in the development of the package, but the education department, in consultation with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, colleagues, did not consider that the package warranted a regional analysis. What a failure!
In the longer term, although these amendments do not change the operation of the new childcare subsidy they do require that the government review the implementation of a childcare package on an ongoing basis. This review would occur after the first year of the operation of the package in 2019 and be in consultation with the community. Consultation means listening, acting, listening, acting and then doing what the community asks. It does not mean listening and then doing what the government wants in the first place. We are really good at consultation in rural and regional Victoria. We know what it means and we know when we do not get it. I have offered my services to work with the government on developing a consultation mechanism that works. I am delighted that—and I really acknowledge—the staff of the department have agreed to come to Indi and work closely with me and my communities on developing that process.
Over time, I really want to work with the government on not only this childcare package but all their legislation to make sure that the government understands that the people of rural and regional Australia often have differing needs to the people who live in the cities. Programs designed as one-size-fits-all often fail to meet our need. In closing, again I call to my colleagues on the other side: really look of these amendments because, in voting against them, your communities will be able to actually ask you, 'Did you understand what you were doing and did you really agree that these amendments were not up to scratch?' I am saying that a huge amount of work has been done with them. They have the best intentions for rural and regional Australia. I am looking forward to having the support of both the Labor Party and my colleagues who represent regional and rural seats in these amendments.
In closing, I thank the minister for his support. I am really looking forward to working with you to develop in the longer term childcare packages that, for me, particularly meet the needs of farming families, in particular farming women. The one thing we can do to increase productivity in Australian agriculture is to provide quality child care to our farming families, making it accessible, affordable and in places that meet their needs. Sadly, I do not think this legislation does it, but you absolutely have my commitment to work together with the government, as I do on every occasion that I possibly can, to design services that meet the needs of rural and regional Australia. I thank the minister and the opposition leader for their support with these amendments.
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (10:53): I rise to support the comments and the amendment that has been moved by the member for Indi to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. I thank her for her advocacy and for fighting so hard for not just regional families, but particularly for regional children, who would otherwise be left severely disadvantaged by the proposal that we have before the parliament.
We support the amendment and we support the measures to try and address what is a very deep flaw in this piece of legislation. We have made clear that there are particular problems with the child care reforms. Whilst we support the overwhelming bulk of the measures to try and streamline, simplify and improve the system, all of the experts have pointed out that there is a very big problem in these reforms when it comes to the mobile services that serve regional families. In fact, we know that Anne Bowler, the chair of the National Association of Mobile Services, said:
The funding reform proposal will no doubt ensure the closure of up to 90% of the current BBF mobile children's services across rural and remote communities in Australia.
That is not good enough. That is not acceptable. It is not good enough for the parliament to vote to support these proposals with our eyes wide open about what the consequences will be. If it was not for all of the advocacy through all of the Senate inquiries, we also saw media reports as recently as yesterday about what the impact of these reforms would be on regional families and regional children. Yesterday we saw a media report about the Bogan Bush mobile service in New South Wales pointing out that families using that service will face a 500 per cent fee increase if these reforms go through. That is a service that operates in the electorates of Parkes, Riverina and Page. But do you think we have heard any advocacy or any concerns? Has any member of those electorates, or indeed of the National Party, who purport to represent regional families, actually stood up for the families who will suffer as a result of this? No, they have not.
So we support the amendment proposed by the member for Indi, but we also say that the government needs to do more. It is not good enough for the government to say, 'We will do a review in the future and have a look at what services have suffered unintended consequences.' It is not good enough for the government to say, 'We will release guidelines on 1 July, but just trust us and pass this legislation,' knowing the damning effect that it will have on regional families as well as on Indigenous children and on children who will have their hours of access cut as a result of changes to the activity test.
When it comes to Indigenous children, who we know will be hit the hardest as a result of the attacks on the budget-based funded services in this legislation, this parliament needs to be really clear about the fact that the research is overwhelming: if you really want to close the gap and you do not want to just stand and make nice speeches in this parliament from time to time, one of the most effective ways to do it is to ensure that Indigenous children in those remote communities have access to quality early childhood education. This bill will actually shut that down. It will have a devastating impact on those families—something that the advocates in SNAICC had pointed out when they said:
What is going to happen to our services? In 2018 they will have to close their doors.
I note that the minister did address this in his closing comments, and I thank him for that. I note that in yesterday's matter of public importance debate not a single member of the government could defend what they are doing to Indigenous services, mobile regional services and lower-income Australian families under the changes to the activity test. But I say that the minister's comments are not good enough. It is not good enough to say, 'We will do a review and have a look at what services got shut down as a result of this.' It is not good enough to say, 'We will assess on a service-by-service basis how it is that they might fare.' They are all telling us exactly what will happen. Those services will close, and those children and families will miss out on those vital services.
I do not know how many members of the government have visited Indigenous budget-based funded services, but I will tell you that I have seen them. What I have seen is that in some remote communities they basically are a tin shed, but they are a tin shed where those children can go and be safe, well fed and their families can be supported to learn about healthy parenting and nutrition and escaping family violence, and to give those children the basic first steps to an early education. I support the amendment and I call on all government members, open your eyes, see what you are doing and fix the flaws in this legislation.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:58): I rise to support the member for Indi's amendment to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. What we are seeing is a growing divide between regional Australia and metropolitan Australia. This is a very clear example of how government policy will make life in regional Australia more and more difficult. I particularly support the member for Indi's comments in relation to the mobile services. We need to support farming families. At times I do not think people in this House realise that when harvest is on mum is on the tractor, dad is on the tractor—who is going to look after the children? We are talking about a mobile service where sometimes there is no shop-front childcare centre for hours away. To put those services under threat is a great disservice to regional Australia, and it is a great disservice to all of Australia.
I would also like to touch on the budget-based funded sites. The member for Adelaide, the shadow minister, has talked about this. There are 245 budget-based sites, mainly in remote and regional Australia. They overwhelmingly support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young children. Seventy-three of these are in the Northern Territory. We know that if a review happens when they are gone, they are just gone. We know that they have got nowhere to transition to, and they are telling us that at least 50 per cent of their services will close. There is no way that they can be funded under what is generally planned for a metropolitan service. And if we in this parliament are serious about closing the gap—we have only just had a number of speeches on closing the gap in the last sitting week—if we are truly serious about addressing Indigenous disadvantage in this nation, then we will ensure that children have an opportunity to access early learning services and that they have an opportunity, with their parents, to access health education and to access a whole range of social services within these budget based services.
Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask the minister to please reconsider the funding of this. This can be funded within the existing childcare envelope. Look, I commend the government for the fact that they have been able to stop more than $1 billion worth of rorting that they found within the childcare funding envelope. A very, very small proportion of that money would fund excellent budget based sites across remote Australia as well as mobile services across regional Australia and we would see more of a move towards actually closing the gap in this place. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, again, I commend the member for Indi and everybody who is speaking on this. This is absolutely too critical for us to just let this be waived through.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:01): I acknowledge the excellent work done by an excellent minister and we also deeply appreciate that he has committed to dealing with the member for Indi; however, ministers change and government attitudes change, so we would feel much more comfortable if it was written in the legislation.
I would like, by way of argument, to tell one small story, which explains closing the gap and your failure to close the gap. I hope the staff pass onto the minister my kind remarks. I was with the Catholic priest in Cloncurry at his house, which is a stilt house. We went up the stairway. The holding bar on the left-hand side had fallen off, so it was a bit scary walking up the stairs; they were pretty rickety and old. He only had one chair, and he gave that to me. I said, 'No way', so we both sat on the floor together. We were in the middle of discussions and he said, 'I have to terminate discussions because I've got to look after these people over here.' There was a group of about 12 or 13 little children, ranging from the age of about five or six, I would say, up to about 12. I said, 'What do you mean you've got to look after them?' He said, 'I've got to feed them.' I said: 'You're the poorest person I've ever met! How could you possibly afford to feed them?' He said, 'If I don't feed them, they don't get fed.' By the way, this was at sundown; it was very late in the afternoon. He said, 'Their parents' idea of feeding them is when they get very, very hungry and they start crying, their parents give them some money to go and buy a bottle of Coca-Cola and a packet of chips', which naturally kids would do.
It is a small story, but that story could be repeated all over Australia a thousand times. While there is an emphasis on First Australians, it is very hard to differentiate on that basis in country areas because of intermarriage over the years. And we should not be taking that as a special basis as to why it should be looked at. So the member for Indi has moved a very sensible amendment. Whilst we greatly respect the minister and the excellent work that he is doing, we also say that we would feel much more comfortable if it was locked into legislation because he may not be the minister soon—who knows what tomorrow brings.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (11:04): I would like to value-add to some of the comments. I acknowledge the member for Kennedy and the member for Mayo for their support. I would like to take the opportunity, while I have got two of my most favourite ministers sitting at the table—
Ms Kate Ellis: You're losing the crowd!
Ms McGOWAN: I know. But I want to say to both the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for the Environment and Energy, and other really important people: rural and regional Australia matters. It is not just the election in Queensland and it is not just the election in Western Australia. You have seen the rearguard fight that we have put up for this particular legislation. I want to say to you—if you could take this to cabinet and take this back to your party rooms—that the government has got to do a much, much better job for those of us who live outside the regional capitals. You have got to show that you have a policy. The policy has to have principles of equality. The policy has to have principles of accessibility. The policy has to show that you are actually consulting and that, when you consult, you actually do what people say.
There are so many examples in rural and regional Australia, and in my electorate alone, of where the government—I have to say to both parties: you are missing the boat with us. You are going to lose more and more of us. Already the figures show that something like 29 per cent of Australians want to give their first vote to someone other than the major parties. So you are hearing a call from the heart. It is this sort of legislation that affects the mothers and the children and the Aboriginal people and the most needy of us in rural and regional Australia. I know that the government has heard my call, but I say to my colleagues across the path: you have got to do better. You have actually got to make sure that rural and regional Australia and the services that work for us are considered to work for us. This amendment is important, but it is the beginning of what I am going to say to almost every bit of legislation: have you consulted? Have you done what the people have said? The answer in this particular instance was grants. The minister is going to institute grants, which is a problem. But, anyway, if we have to have grants then we have to have grants.
But what I am beginning to see is grants taking the place of policy—ad hoc, let's put some money in, and then people can apply for grants. The problem with the grant process as a way of solving the problem is that you need really skilled people in your communities, you need paid workers and not only do you need to put the application in but you then have to go and do all the lobbying. The women and the children of rural and regional Australia do not have that capacity to jump through the hoops to get basic services by applying for a grant. It should be by way of service design that the service is there and it should not be only for five years. We actually should be designing systems that are sustainable, that are reliable, that can work for the long term and that have got enough flexibility in them. Working with local government and working with state governments, these services should become part of the fundamental infrastructure of how we build our communities, and this program does not do it. This program does all this add-on and transition stuff.
To the two ministers at the table, I welcome the opportunity to work with you but I really want to place on the record this is not a lone voice from Indi. If you talked to any of the members of the Queensland Rural Women's Network, to the New South Wales Rural Women's Network, to the CWA branches around Australia or to the women members of the farmer organisations, you would be hearing this loudly and clearly. If it is not right for us farmers, just think how much worse it is for our Aboriginal sisters because, if it does not work for us really linked into the National Party and linked into the Liberal Party, think how hard it is for those people who are not even linked into political parties and who do not have a voice.
In bringing my comments to a close and before we vote on this amendment, I am really hoping that you hear my call. This is not just idle; this is the tip of an iceberg of a government that is not paying attention to women and children and is not designing services that meet our needs. I place it there. I will watch the vote with great interest. I say to all my colleagues on the other side of the House: we women will organise around this. The networks we have got around rural and regional Australia and around Aboriginal Australia are strong, and you will be held to account for your vote.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (11:09): I say to the ministers at the table: please do support this. It is not a sign of weakness to agree to an amendment moved by a private member. We have a problem in this place that governments, not just this government but any government, seem to think it is sign of weakness to accept an idea from someone else or to say, 'We are going to change things,' or to even say, 'We have got something wrong.' In fact, it is a sign of strength, a sign of competency, a sign of leadership when a government is to prepared to say 'Hey that is a good idea; we will embrace that.' I lament the fact that in our political system, in our political culture it is something that is seen to be avoided at all costs. Only kicking and screaming would the government agree to something moved by the crossbench or—heaven forbid—even the opposition.
There is a challenge here. Why do we not break the mold? Why do we not do things differently today? Why does the minister not say, 'Hey, that is a really good idea and we are going to support it today.' If for any reason the minister thinks he needs more time to perhaps discuss it with the member for Indi, to explore it more, how about you at least jump up and say, 'It that sounds like a really good idea. I, as minister, make a commitment to the member for Indi that we will look at it this very day, later this week, tomorrow or perhaps next sitting week. We will be prepared to move an amendment if we can find some way of inserting this very sensible amendment.' And it is very sensible.
Although I represent a capital city seat, Tasmania is made up of regional, rural and remote areas. In fact the bureaucrats in Canberra think of Hobart as a regional city. So this is as relevant to me and to my constituency as it is to the other crossbenchers. There is a challenge to the minister to break the mould, to show a bit of open-mindedness and to say, 'Okay that is a good idea.'
A warning has been sounded by the member for Indi. In Newspoll this week, 29 per cent of those polled showed a preference for One Nation or the Greens or others. Twenty-nine per cent is almost a third of the country. They are unprecedented figures, I think. It is not by accident. It is because an unprecedented number of people in the community are sick and tired of businesses as usual, of politics as usual. They want to see something different, and probably no more so than in regional, rural and remote Australia where people are feeling more and more ignored. They are feeling—and I think the feeling is warranted—that we in this place are increasingly removed from them, from their world and from their challenges, that we populate this wonderful building and that we move in wonderful circles.
Maybe it is because we now have generation of professional politicians. We all know the profile—the bright young thing goes to university; gets mixed up in student politics; might be a union organiser or a lawyer for a couple of years; becomes a staff member; spends all their time playing party games to get preselected, hopefully, for a safe seat; and has a wonderful job for life. And even when they lose their seat, like the former member for Bass, Andrew Nikolic and others, six months later they are in some cushy bureaucratic job because of the generosity of the government of the day.
It is no accident. There is nothing mysterious why 29 per cent of Australians are showing a preference for candidates and parties other than the Liberal-National coalition or for the Labor Party. It is because they do want to see change. I reckon here is a wonderful opportunity to say to the Australian community: 'Okay, the government are listening and are prepared to be more collegiate in this place. We are prepared to accept good ideas from other people.' And, Minister Porter, if you cannot agree to the amendment today, how about you at least jump up and make a commitment to the member for Indi that you will talk with her later today and that you will seriously contemplate moving an amendment later today or tomorrow or next sitting week to see this sensible idea implemented in this bill.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (11:14): I thank all the members for their contributions, particularly the member for Indi. I know that the member for Indi has discussed this issue and matter at length with the Minister for Education and Training—his knowledge about the matter certainly exceeds my own—and I know that he has indicated to you, Member for Indi, that we are not inclined to agree to the amendment and we will not be agreeing to it today. But no doubt the discussions between you and him will be ongoing. We understand the issue. It is not a lack of bravery, Member for Denison, that motivates us to not accept the amendment; rather, we think that what is in the legislation copes with the situation that you have identified. To the extent that you might disagree with that, I know that there are discussions that are ongoing, particularly in circumstances where part of the solution that we are proposing is ongoing reviews of the situation.
But I think it might be useful just to place on record some of the terms of the discussions that I understand have happened between you, Member for Indi, and the education minister, starting with a very brief description of the historical nature of the budget based funding, which is that it is in effect closed and capped. So one of the difficulties that have arisen, as I am sure you would agree, is that under the present system of BBF funding there is not any ability to respond to changes in community circumstances. If there is an increased number of children in a particular area, whether it is one that has been described by members opposite, or in an electorate, under the present funding system there is an inability to respond to that increased number of children.
The other difficulty, I understand, about the historical formulation of funding of this closed and capped BBF Program is that you do have very strong inequities arising. In some areas some childcare services would be receiving as little as $35.95 per child, whereas in other areas there would be very large amounts per child, and my information is that some of those get to as high as tens of thousands of dollars per child. So there is the historical legacy agreement of funding, there are inequities in that, and it is inflexible and does not allow for growth in some areas or for a decreased population in other areas.
What has been proposed in this bill is to allow the current budget based funded services to be properly funded for services they deliver by transitioning them into what is effectively their part in the same system that would apply to all childcare providers, but with some access to particular areas of funding that would sit on top of the basic funding model. It offers service providers flexibility and support in that, if there is an increase in the number of children or there are population pressures in the area in which a BBF service provide services, they would be able to increase their income by expanding their service delivery instead of having their service constrained by the fixed amount of allocated grant funding.
Member for Indi, you noted that you think one of the problems with the solution that is being proposed is that it is in effect grant funding. I think that is partly true, but of course the existing BBF system is in a sense grant funding which is quite fixed and quite inflexible. What is being proposed—and I am sure this has been part of the discussions between you and the education minister—is that the BBFs will be able to, first of all, access the general childcare subsidy. As you are aware, that is a payment per child, so services with more children than are currently recognised through their budget based funding are going to be able to benefit by having increases in their funding based on increases in the number of children that they are caring for. Again, families on an income of around $65,000 or less are going to receive a subsidy of what is effectively 85 per cent of the actual fees charged, up to the hourly fee cap.
So the first point is that the access to the general childcare subsidy means that the BBF model can grow along with population growth and the growth in the number of children that the services care for. The second point is that the additional childcare subsidy is available as a top-up payment in addition to the CCS, and that is of course a childcare top-up payment. Where some families in some areas—particularly the areas that you represent, Member for Indi, and indeed that are inside my own electorate—have a temporary financial hardship, where there is a transition-to-work issue arising or where there are grandparent carers, in addition to the flexibility of the first source of funding the childcare subsidy offers, there is the second source of funding to the families, which is the additional childcare subsidy.
Of course, where there is an issue around child wellbeing, where a child is at risk of abuse or neglect, the Community Child Care Fund, the CCCF, is going to recognise those unique circumstances in which the BBF would be operating and take into account the additional challenges and costs it faces compared with other types of services. Talking about the CCCF, that represents $110 million available each year. So, firstly, you have the childcare subsidy, which allows growth in funding per child (Extension of time granted) for the first time, which was not available before under what was basically block grant funding, although it was recurring. Secondly, you then have the additional childcare subsidy, which also offers an avenue for the BBFs to be funded. And then, thirdly, you have the CCCF, which represents $110 million.
We accept, and I think this was implied in your contribution, that the applications to the CCCF are on a competitive basis and you must be very careful to ensure that the BBFs are not outcompeted for that money. But I am sure, again, as has been discussed, there will be capacity inside the CCCF amount, the $110 million, for discretionary funding of services outside the main competitive funding. Those funding determinations would be informed by the work of the PwC consultants. I think that it is important to acknowledge that the PwC consultants are going to look at the particular needs of every single BBF in the country so that the minister and the department are well informed as to those particular needs and their particular circumstances, and how the first two rounds of funding are applying to them in making this decision with respect to the discretionary funding of services.
I heard and understood, and listened carefully to what the member for Adelaide had to say. It does seem, I think, improbable to suggest that you are going to have a failure in this sector when you are moving from one closed and capped source of funding to what are three sources of funding where at least one is not closed and capped, in the sense that it can provide for growth in the number of children being cared for in each of the BBFs that we are considering.
So, obviously, we join issue with you in understanding that there are very peculiar circumstances and particular circumstances with respect to the BBFs. We are not declining this amendment because its instincts are not right; we simply consider that these are matters which have been taken into account in the drafting. Now, there may be a different view on that. I am sure that these discussions between you, Member for Indi, and the education minister will continue, but it is not an amendment that we are inclined to agree to today.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (11:21): I would like to take one particular issue from all that you were talking about, because I think it encapsulates the problem that we are facing. Surely, the BBFs have not been working and they need review. They are not particular, and that is the whole point: they have become particular and outside the mainstream. What we are trying to say is: design a service that stops rural and regional Australia being particular. That is what the BBFs have done and it definitely needs to change. There is no argument about it. What we are doing is actually perpetuating a system that is not working by keeping rural and regional Australia as a special case.
What we are asking of the really clever people in the government and the system is to design something where rural and regional Australia, farming women and Aboriginal families are not special and are not different. We are asking for the clever brains to design a system that says, 'Ah, we've got diversity in Australia. We can't have one size fits all. We're clever enough to manage this. And we are, and we have lots of examples where we do it, but just on this really particular issue of child care we have one size fits everybody but we have made rural and regional Australia and Aboriginal families special and different.'
That is the real critique that we have of this legislation. I am not going to speak again after this, but I would really like to acknowledge the comments of my colleague from Denison. What would it take for the government to say: 'Cathy, member for Indi, really good idea'? It would be such a good thing if you guys could do this because it would save the enormous embarrassment that is going to happen in a minute when we have the division. I am going to put on my webpage a map that shows where all these BBFs are; and the members who represent rural and regional seats are going to have to vote against something which is clearly in their own interests. Anyhow, enough—we have had the debate; I think it is time to bring on the vote.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that this bill be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
The House divided. [11:28]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [11:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (11:39): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a third time. All those of that opinion say aye—
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Barker will resume his seat. I am dealing with a piece of legislation. It has been moved that this bill be now read a third time.
A division having been called, the bells having been rung and an incident having occurred in the chamber—
The SPEAKER: I just remind members that there are still 30 seconds in which they can be ejected under 94(a) before I lock the doors. Lock the doors. The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
The House divided. [11:41]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (11:43): The member for Barker was seeking the call before?
Mr Pasin: I was; thank you, Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I ask that the member for Barton withdraw the comment she made, directed to the Minister for Social Services, under standing order 89. It is an offensive reference and she should withdraw it.
The SPEAKER: The member for Barker will resume his seat. It was problematic at the time the member for Barker sought to raise this matter; there was such—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will just be uncharacteristically quiet for a second, if that is okay. As the chamber was so rowdy, all I heard was the member for Barker clearly responding to something; I could see that, but I did not hear the interjection, and, without the member being present—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left, I do not need any assistance. Without the member being here, and the moment having passed, I do not propose to take any further action, other than to caution members that, if they make unparliamentary remarks and they are asked to withdraw, they should withdraw. Unparliamentary remarks will certainly be dealt with in the normal way. But, on this occasion, I do not think that there is any further action I can take, other than to disrupt the House—which has probably had enough disruption for the day.
Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (11:45): I start my contribution today with a riddle: how many National and LNP members does it take to announce a website? In an event we just saw in the House of Representatives courtyard, there were at least 10 LNP and National members launching a website. That is how seriously they take issues in rural and regional Australia and the issues that are key and core to the matter before the House in this bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017.
I would also point out to the House that we just voted on an omnibus bill that has a childcare component, which is very, very bad news for regional communities, making it impossible for people living in regional communities to secure child care. To partly offset that shameless act, the member for Indi moved an amendment in the consideration-in-detail stage of the bill which would at least partly offset the pain that will cause for rural and regional Australia. She started by insisting that the government develop a regional plan for child care, in the hope that we will overcome the pain caused by what the government just passed some time in the future. That was a very reasonable thing to request. That was one of the most reasonable amendments I have seen in this place in many, many years.
How could one oppose the idea of the government developing a plan to ensure that those living in rural and regional Australia can access child care? You would think no-one would be capable of opposing an amendment asking for such a strategic plan, but that is exactly what members opposite just did. That is exactly what every member of the Nationals and every member of the LNP representing rural seats in Queensland just did. That is inexplicable and it is a disgrace. They should hang their heads in shame. It surprised me greatly, because the media conference we just saw, where Barnaby Joyce and his colleagues launched a website, was about trying to stop the fracturing in the LNP in Queensland.
Mr Gee: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. He needs to return to the bill and I would ask that you direct him to do so.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Please continue.
Mr FITZGIBBON: I always love points of order, because you know that you are hitting the mark. The member who took the point of order is one of those Nats representing a rural seat who just voted against a plan to bolster child care in rural and regional communities. That is why he jumped to his feet. It was not because I was out of order, because it is pretty hard not to be relevant to this bill when you are talking about the interests of rural and regional Australia. Some of the beneficiaries of the farm household allowance will be the same people who will not be able to access child care, because of what those opposite just passed in that omnibus bill and because of their failure to reject the idea of having a plan to do something about child care in rural and regional Australia.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr FITZGIBBON: I do thank the member for Chifley, sitting opposite. It is nice to hear a chorus of support from the government benches. I appreciate it very, very much. Maybe there is hope for decent services in rural and regional Australia, with such a chorus of support coming from the government benches.
I notice that we do have some people in the galleries. This bill is about addressing some of the failings in farm household support. Farm household support is, if you like, an unemployment benefit for farmers doing it tough, farmers who find themselves in a situation, whether it be because of drought or some other influence upon them, where they find it necessary, very reluctantly always, to turn to the government temporarily, at least, for support. We do not call it Newstart as it applies to farmers; we call it farm household allowance. Over many decades, we have had a welfare payment for farmers doing it tough. It has had various names but, under the current act, it is called farm household allowance.
I want to say something about the history of drought policy in this country. Prior to around 2009, we had a drought policy as governments—plural. It existed under both coalition and Labor governments. It was commonly known, or at least highlighted by its key elements, as exceptional circumstances. A Productivity Commission report in around 2009 suggested that the drought support system was broken, that it was not giving farmers the support they required, that it was not doing enough to help farmers transition into a more resilient enterprise and that it was not lifting productivity. In fact, 70 per cent of farmers did not rely upon it, but it was proving to be of no real benefit in making sure that people made that transition. Sadly, at the height of the millennium drought, it was costing taxpayers a billion dollars. So it was a very, very expensive support package, and the Productivity Commission, every state government in the country, the federal government, the National Farmers Federation and many others at the time agreed that something dramatic had to be done and that it was time to revisit and reform drought policy in this country.
The result of that was that the states agreed with the Commonwealth to transition to something new. The first thing they had to do, of course, was make sure that there was continuity in the welfare payment and make sure that, as we moved from the old system to a new model, people would be in a position to access appropriate support during times of drought. First of all, we had what was called the interim farm household allowance support, which was put in place just prior to the 2013 election, I think. It was there to serve until the new payment was put in place on a permanent basis. I should have said when I was talking about support for farmers that there is one big difference between Newstart payments, for example, and the farm household allowance, and that is that the asset and income tests are different. The means testing is much different because, obviously, farmers often sit on a high value of on-farm assets and, ordinarily, with Newstart farmers would be immediately knocked out of any potential for securing the payment. So the farm household allowance has a much different means testing arrangement to accommodate for that very important difference between them and most people who would be seeking assistance through Centrelink.
The great tragedy about that history is that the continuity in the welfare payment was only the first step to developing a new drought plan. There was every intention that the Standing Council on Primary Industries, which was the COAG committee made up of Commonwealth and state ag ministers, would continue to develop the next phase of the process to determine what the broader drought policy would look like. Sadly, five minutes after its election in 2013, the Abbott government abolished SCoPI. It abolished the COAG committee designed to look at agriculture issues including drought. Even more sadly, 3½ years after the initial election of this government, we still do not have a drought policy. Yes, we have a farm household allowance and, yes, we have a thing the minister calls concessional loans. That is big money in the budget, but, of course, it is something that costs the government very little and is a program which is proving only marginally beneficial to a small number of farmers. At times when interest rates are so low and given that they are so hard to access, most farmers just come to the conclusion that concessional loans simply are not worth the effort. So 3½ years, or longer than that, since we started the process of moving from the old system to a new and, hopefully, better system we have nothing, basically. The scientists and the Bureau of Meteorology continue to tell us that a changing climate is getting worse and it is going to be more difficult for farmers in the future than it has been in the past, and we need, as a parliament, to get cracking to determine how we are going to deal with those issues.
I have said many times, and I do not mind saying it again, that it is a fact that around 80 per cent of the farm output in this country comes from 30 per cent of the firms and that the smallest 50 per cent represent only seven per cent of output. They are 2009 figures, I should say, but I have seen no indication that those figures would have changed in proportionate terms by very much since then. As the Productivity Commission says, the bottom 25 per cent of broadacre farms have not made a profit in 30 years. I would have thought that is an outcome that the minister would be turning his attention to and developing a strategic plan for agriculture to determine what are the faults there and what his government should be doing about it. We thought we would have a strategic plan—or we hoped we would have a strategic plan—in the form of the agricultural white paper, but, of course, it could hardly be described as a plan. It was not a plan; it was a cobbled together range of thought bubbles but not a strategic plan in any sense of the word, in my view. It is not too late for the minister to start having a serious conversation about what incentives, reforms and guidance should come from government to ensure that we make the most of the significant opportunities available to our farm sector, both in the domestic market and, of course, in those burgeoning export markets, particularly the emerging middle classes in Asia. That is what we need to be talking about.
This bill, as I said, seeks to address the deficiencies in the farm household allowance, deficiencies that were obvious from day one. I remind the House that it was the farm household allowance that got the minister for agriculture in a bit of trouble in this place because it was the minister's attempt to respond to my question about the failings of drought policy and the farm household allowance which caused him to doctor the Hansard. In his attempt to embellish the effectiveness of the farm household allowance, he completely misled the House, kept it quiet and doctored his Hansard. The rest is history and a very senior, professional and highly regarded public servant lost his job as a result of that very sad saga. I am talking, of course, about Dr Grimes, who was the departmental head at that time. Dr Grimes's crime was to take the minister on, to question his integrity and to ask him to, please, out of respect for his department, do the right thing, fess up in the parliament, correct his Hansard and take responsibility. But the minister decided he would not be taking any responsibility; rather, he moved the secretary of his department on. That is a sad and tragic event in the history of the department of agriculture in this country.
But the point is, of course, that we have been telling the minister since at least the last quarter of 2014 that farmers were hurting, that they were unable to get access to the farm household allowance. They could not jump through the myriad complexities and application processes, and they could not get anyone to support them at Centrelink. But the minister's response was to say, 'No, it's all great,' and to mislead the House. That was his response.
So after all these years—three years later—the minister has decided that there is something wrong with the farm household allowance. He has finally conceded that the farm household allowance is broken and is in need of repair. This bill in itself is a belated admission that the minister got the original moral thinking wrong, that he was wrong to reject my expressions of concern in 2014 and thereafter and that he should have fixed this three years ago. That is what the minister should have done. We should not be debating this bill today. We should have been debating a bill to fix the farm household allowance three years ago.
But that poses the question: does this bill fix the problem? The bill does no harm, but sadly it does not fix the problem. What does the bill do? The bill removes the ordinary waiting period for those making an application. In other words, currently if you apply to Centrelink for the farm household allowance and you secure approval for the farm household allowance, you wait a week before you qualify. This bill removes the one-week waiting period. That seems like a reasonable thing—I am not unhappy about it; I am pleased the one-week waiting period will be removed—but the Centrelink problem has not been fixed, and the complexities of the form have not been fixed. Now people will be waiting 13, 14, 15 or 16 weeks while they try to get through the Centrelink process—a process which is growing worse by the day as this government continues to cut resources from Centrelink. I do not need to share any of those stories with the House. Every member in this place will in recent times have had experience with a constituent who cannot talk to a person in Centrelink. They walk in and are told either to use the phone or the computer in the corner or to go home and use the phone or the computer there. That is the level of service they receive at Centrelink.
Senator Bridget McKenzie had a bit of a road tour, a roadshow, where she consulted people about the problems they were having with the farm household allowance. She hailed those roundtables as a great success. She finally delivered a report to the parliament, but only because the member for Indi insisted on one—a very clever move from the member for Indi, I must say. I had not contemplated the idea that Senator McKenzie did not produce a report—I suspect she did not—but I think one was written the night after she was asked the question. We now know that Bridget McKenzie produced a report, but none of the key issues Senator McKenzie raised in her report has been addressed by this bill, and certainly this bill in no way fixes the Centrelink problems. The one-week waiting period will be removed, but the 13-, 14-, 15- or 16-week wait at Centrelink will not be removed. That is hardly a solution to the Centrelink problem—a problem which grows worse by the day. We will be supporting the bill. It does not go anywhere near far enough, but it certainly does no harm. It will make things a tiny bit better, hopefully, for some farmers experiencing hardship.
The other provision we are supportive of is a redefinition of some off-farm assets as on-farm assets—things like water allocations and interests in cooperatives—so that those assets do not count against a farmer when facing the assets test. That seems like a reasonable thing to do. I am not exactly sure how co-op interests have been valued in the past, on what basis that has been done, but obviously this can only be beneficial to those making an application. Certainly, it will not be sufficient to address the key issues.
I know the minister will come in here and say that he has a pilot project going on with the Minister for Human Services and that they are going to fix all these Centrelink problems sometime in the future. Well, I will not hold my breath. I am hopeful; I live in hope. But that in turn is an admission that, after 3½ years, the problem is still not fixed and will not be fixed anytime soon because I assume the pilot project will go on for some period of time. There will be an assessment of it, and at some point in the future something might be done about the processes, including Centrelink. But farmers have been desperate now for 3½ years and remain desperate on a daily basis. They will not take too much solace or encouragement from the pilot project being led by, as I understand it, Minister Tudge. We will be supporting the bill, but on behalf of farmers we remain very disappointed.
We are concerned about another matter. While the government are reducing the official waiting time for farmers, they are increasing the waiting time for other welfare recipients. We on this side think farmers are pretty special people. They produce our food and are a very important part of our economy and our regional communities. But why are we reducing the waiting time for one group of people in our society while, at the same time, increasing it for others? Why do unemployed youth or pensioners have to wait weeks, when farmers will not face any waiting period? This is not an expression of regret about farmers having their waiting period reduced—in fact, abolished; it is an expression of concern about the inconsistencies of the government. It raises questions about their priorities. Indeed, it raises questions about their moral thinking. Why do people who might have a disability, for example, have to wait, but farmers do not? The minister needs to help us fully understand the logic of that, the rationale, and where that fits into his moral compass. Is he saying, 'We don't really support people who find themselves unemployed because they are dole bludgers'? Is that the difference? Is it that farmers are great people—and they are—but if you are a dole bludger you will wait? That is what shines through for me in this bill and that provision. The minister needs to come in here and help us reconcile that.
There is a concern of an even higher order. I go back to what I was saying about the lack of a drought policy. What I did not say about the farm household allowance is that it is for three years. It is not necessarily for three concurrent years. People can go on the farm household allowance for a period to get through a tough patch and then go off it in the hope of living under more profitable arrangements on their farm enterprise. If they find the going tough again, they can go back on it. But, in aggregate, they can be on the payment for only three years. There will be, I suspect, some people who will have been on it continuously for three years by the time we get to the end of this calendar year, if not earlier. So the question is: in the absence of the development of any other drought policy in 3½ years, what is going to happen to those people? What is going to happen to those farmers in three, six or 12 months when Centrelink rings up and says: 'That's it. There is no more farm household allowance for you. You're on your own.' The farmers will ask: 'Can we get some other form of payment? Can we get Newstart, for example?' No, they will not be able to get Newstart because their assets will be too great and they will never pass the means test. So these people are just about to fall off a cliff. They are going to find themselves in big trouble. When the minister returns to the dispatch box to close debate on this bill, he needs to tell the House what is going to happen to the farmers who are about to reach the end of their eligibility for the farm household allowance.
I hope he is not going to say that they can go and get a concessional loan. Surely not. Surely the minister is not going to stand here and say: 'Oh, well. They can go and get a concessional loan. We've got lots of money on the table for those.' Yes, they do. The minister—although I have not heard him say it lately—likes to talk about the capital value of the loan. I do not remember the figure exactly, but he said something like, 'We've put a billion dollars on the table for concessional loans.' Yes, but that is not the cost to the budget. The government's borrowing costs are almost zero by rate. The cost to the government is the administration involved in delivering the loans where they are delivered. This is pretty rare, and there is a very small interest rate. It is not giving billions of dollars to farmers in concessional loans. He is offering them, but very few are taking them up. He is using the same strategy in northern Australia—'We've got money on the table for dams and infrastructure. As long as someone matches the funding, we'll give it away. We'll give it away, but we want it back. And we want it back with interest.'
This is the folly of the policy approach of this government. They give false hope by putting these so-called benefits out there. People listening on the radio or watching on television hear about them and think, 'Those are good things they are doing for the people who will be the recipients of those programs.' But because they are not people who are ever going to seek to be the recipients they do not hear the real story. The real story is that the money never gets given out because the conditions attached to the loans are too onerous and too hard to meet. So the minister needs to talk far less about what he might do and what he is offering and start talking about what he is prepared to do for farmers and, more particularly, going back to an earlier part of my contribution, what he is going to do about a strategic plan for agriculture in this country.
I started on the press conference that was largely—for me, at least—about the relocation of the APVMA. The minister can start there. He can drop this dumb idea. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority have no interface with farmers. They are in charge of making sure the chemicals and veterinary medicines that multinational companies want to put into the Australian system, whether they be a shot for a horse or a spray for a crop, are safe and efficient and are not going to be detrimental to human health. Every time that we eat something that has been grown in Australia and will have been subject to crop protection we rely on the APVMA to make sure that that crop protection, as important as it is, is in no way detrimental to our health.
Farmers rely on the productivity level and profitability level of the APVMA to deliver to them the latest and best proper protections and animal medicines in a timely manner. If they cannot rely on the APVMA to do that then—guess what?—productivity and profitability further decline. The APVMA plays a role in the export market. If we cannot get data out of the APVMA, exports go down the tube. Every person in this country with a pet relies on the APVMA to ensure the medicines they give to their loved pet is safe and beneficial and not harmful to their pet.
A very good start would be to dump the pork barrel. We know the minister struggles in Armidale. We know Tony Windsor beats him there every time.
Mr Chester: He smashed him!
Mr FITZGIBBON: He smashed him, did he? Check the polling figures in Armidale, Minister. Yes, the minister is strong in Tamworth, but he is weak in Armidale. So he is going to use $26 million of taxpayers' money to move an agency to Armidale so he can secure his seat. That is what this is all about. He does not mind destroying the authority along the way, to the great detriment of farmers and others in this country.
The minister can also not just talk about exports but do something about them. He can turn his mind to what is happening in the meat-processing industry in this country where hundreds of people are losing their jobs because this minister has no plan. He talks about free trade agreements, but we cannot get protocols. Horticulture, in particular, cannot get access to those new markets. It is all right to have an FTA, but you have to have protocols. There is an enormous range of technical barriers still yet to be overcome, but you never hear the minister talk about that. This is a minister that talks a lot. He loves the spin. He sees everything through the political prism. He sees everything through his own political ambition. The minister at the table, Mr Chester, knows that better than anyone in this chamber; he is a victim of it. He sees everything through his own political ambition. There is never any substance. It is all spin, no substance.
The loser, of course, is the Australian agricultural sector. As a consequence, the key losers are every person living in this country who are not realising the dream to be the provider of high-quality, safe, green food in Asia. This minister has no plan and has no strategy. He is all spin, no substance. We are all the losers.
Mr DRUM (Murray) (12:16): Following that 30 minutes is going to be rather difficult because I am not quite sure what to pay any credibility to and what to just dismiss as absolute rubbish. But, certainly, the concept of the Labor Party assuming government in this place is, when it comes to agriculture, too scary to even contemplate. To think that we could have as minister the shadow minister for agriculture, who only short couple of months ago was standing at the dispatch box and laughing about the predicament that was the backpacker tax.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Created by you!
Mr DRUM: He is someone who thought it was just a bit of a joke. I know that I had about 200 orchardists from the Goulburn Valley that—
Mr Fitzgibbon: Did you take responsibility?
Mr DRUM: told me that they had tried to contact the shadow minister's office to try to get him to see sense. They were either hung up on their phones or they were laughed at like the shadow minister—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The member for Hunter has the call.
Mr Fitzgibbon: I have two points of order. If the member wants to make an accusation of that nature, he needs to do so by a substantive motion. The second point of order is: if he is going to make an accusation like that—which I very much doubt is true—he needs to somehow authenticate it. He just cannot make it up. He cannot say people were ringing my office without response without being able to justify that remark in some way. I suggest it is not true.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Hunter and I call the member for Murray.
Mr DRUM: The truth is sometimes hard to hear, shadow minister.
Mr Champion: Where's your proof?
Mr DRUM: So, effectively, this is what happened. You are complicit in your actions to people who previously used to have some regard for you and your stance on agriculture. However, any credibility that you may have had has now been lost due to your stance and your behaviour throughout the backpacker tax debate in this House. It was quite disgraceful. The fact that you thought that such an important issue was such a joke—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murray back to the—
Mr DRUM: I think you will stand condemned for that.
The scariness of Labor and agriculture does not just end with the backpacker tax and their behaviour but moves on to water. Certainly, there is a certain shadow minister for water in this House who seems to think that we can still take even more water away from productive agriculture and send it down the river for environmental purposes for South Australia's benefit. When we are trying to look after communities and when we are trying to do the best we can for productive agriculture—and I see the shadow minister has had enough; out he goes. That would be right. I hope he is going to see Mr Burke and have a talk about water, but he is probably not. He will probably just go and have a gag about the backpacker tax. This is an incredibly important issue for the seat of Murray and the people who are in agriculture right on the Murray-Darling Basin.
Reports have recently been done in relation to the damage that has been caused by taking water away from communities. I know that the review that took place in the northern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin shows there has been considerable damage to those communities around St George, Dirranbandi and other areas in the north. That is why they have had to change their targets for recovery in those areas. These reviews are still yet to be done in the southern part of the basin. But, nevertheless, the thought that the Labor Party in this place still thinks that you can take an additional 450 gigalitres of water away from productive agriculture to, effectively, keep the Murray Mouth open and to keep lakes at the bottom end of the Murray River system freshwater when naturally they are estuarine lakes, seemingly beggars believe.
This particular bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017, is dealing mainly with farmer household allowance and the support that this government is providing for farmers. At the moment, the major concern is within the dairy industry. It must be also noted that when the dairy industry was plunged into the crisis that it was through the advice being given to the farmers and the clawback provisions that took place in May of last year, the Minister for Agriculture Barnaby Joyce was very quick to act—getting into the heart of the dairy regions and putting forward a $550 million package, a support package, a rescue package, to help those farming businesses that needed some assistance and trying to help, in the best way possible, by offering up farmer household allowance and low-interest concessional loans.
I know the shadow minister, again, starts laughing and mocking the concept of low-interest loans. But if you have a 2.47 per cent opportunity to borrow money at, that is something that is very, very serious. Many of our farmers are laden with debt. The ability to switch your loans over to 2.47 per cent has the capacity to save many farmers in the tune of $30,000 to $40,000 per annum. This, coupled with farmer household allowance, which can bring in to a couple in the tune of around $25,000 per annum, is a sizeable support package for a farming business that is doing it very tough due to world commodity prices being very, very low. They are not as low as they were previously under the Labor government, I might add. In 2009, the price started at $3.60 and ended up at $4.49. Those prices were still considerably lower than what they are today and what they were during the middle of the crisis that we have now.
Whilst we do have a crisis now and we have a government that is prepared to accept that we have a crisis in the dairy industry—that is why we are putting these packages together—the crisis is not as bad as it was under Labor, when they did absolutely nothing to support the industry. Here we have another clear example that the Labor opposition are quite happy to stand up here today and take a mocking view of what the government is doing to try to assist farming businesses, dairy farming businesses in particular, while we go through this downturn in the world price of milk. By the way, it is just starting to work its way back up slightly. We now have a price to Murray Goulburn providers of around $4.95, Fonterra at $5.20 and ACM at around $5.30.
So there is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, and we certainly hope that those businesses that have decided to hang tough and keep their herds together and keep their staff on board are going to be able to make profits either now or very shortly into the future. But we have been through a very tough patch. We have been through a situation where many farmers have been getting up at 4.30 in the morning to milk their cows, repeating that at night, just so they can keep their herds together, even though they know they are making a loss. It is heartbreaking and demoralising, and we need to make sure that we have a government that understands this and is prepared to offer the assistance that we have.
One of the issues that were highlighted during the round tables that the member for Hunter spoke about, headed up by Bridget McKenzie, was timeliness—the time that it took to get hold of the farmer household allowance. Yes, there were some delays and yes, we have acted. Again, one of the key provisions in this bill is the streamlining of the application process to enable people to get farmer household allowance with a shorter application time and a shorter waiting time.
One of the other main provisions in this bill, again mocked by the member for Hunter, is the concept that to have an asset such as water, which is a key ingredient for dairy farmers, can hardly be considered an off-farm asset. It is very much a necessary part of the farming business. Therefore, we have brought that particular asset, whether it be $400,000 or $800,000 or $1.5 million worth of water—that is now treated in the same way as is farm equipment and other cooperative bonds and so forth. They are a necessary part of doing business in the dairy industry. Now farmers that have those assets are going to find themselves eligible to find their way to receive farmer household allowance.
It is also worthwhile looking at some of the statistics in Victoria, where the main cohort of farmers who have been in need of farmer household assistance are located. We now have a situation where over 1,650 farmers are receiving farmer household allowance. This has grown steadily over the last three to four months, where it was identified that many farmers needed assistance either with financial planners or financial counsellors to help them get through the paperwork. This is the Australian taxpayers' money that we are making available on a three-year basis to enable farmers to get through a tough patch and find some off-farm income. Ultimately we are trying to give these farmers, who are doing it tough through no fault of their own, through the world drop in milk prices, an opportunity to put food on the table as an emergency act, so they can send the kids to school, provide those children with food, allow the basic bills to be paid and put a business case around their farming business to ensure that there is a bright outcome at the end of the day.
It is not a lifetime on security, which I think was what the member for Hunter might have been angling at, that we need to get rid of the three-year—I do not know where in the world his thought processes are coming from when he wanted to be critical of having a three-year time line on this support package. It just seems to be that whatever the government is doing he is going to oppose and mock it. But we saw how serious the member for Hunter was when it came to an area such as the backpacker tax, when his behaviour was so disgraceful. There was a real opportunity for him to stand tall and to assist farmers, and he just took them as collateral damage to cause the government some embarrassment on the day.
What we have here is an opportunity to look back at where we have come from. Initially the farmer household allowance was very difficult to get hold of. We were talking about the number of Victorian farmers that were able to access it. They were less than 100 initially. Now we have worked through this. The roundtables that Senator McKenzie held were incredibly well attended. We had an opportunity to take the departments and bureaucrats out of Centrelink, the dairy industry representatives, the peak associations—we took them to the communities. We had meetings at Tangambalanga, in the Gippsland area, around Camperdown and at Congupna, my home town. The concept of taking these roundtables to the people, rather than having them drive into the nearest regional city, was something that we thought was important part of showing the people that we are prepared to listen and we are prepared to listen in their patch.
One area, by the way, where we have not been able to help with the assistance package is the cohort of predominantly New Zealand nationals who are out here, many of them in a share farming capacity. They are ineligible for the farmer household allowance and low interest loans. We have offered assistance for those who wish to become nationalised Australians, but certainly we need to keep those farmers in our thoughts as well. Because of their nationality they are ineligible for these assistance packages.
What we have done in this area has been decisive and it has been responsive. It was in May last year that Murray Goulburn announced that they had been overpaying their providers and were going to, all of a sudden, not only start to dramatically drop the price of milk that they were paying their farmers but they were also then going to try to claw that money back. It was only within a matter of days that Barnaby Joyce was in Shepparton and was talking to the peak associations—was talking to the VFF, was talking to Dairy Australia—and the farmers represented under those umbrella groups. He was outlining the support packages he was going to put in place. When that was difficult to assess, he put in place a series of round tables to find out exactly where farmers needed additional help. Now that that has happened, we see the introduction of this bill. We will see more and more assistance and more streamlining for people having access to the farm household allowance.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (12:31): I appreciate the opportunity to speak the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017, and I acknowledge the comments of the member for Murray and the member for Hunter. I say to the minister: thank you for what you have done, but it is not nearly enough. I pick up the point that the member for Murray made about Senator McKenzie's visit. It is true; it is absolutely true that the senator came to Indi, to Murray, to Gippsland and to Corangamite. She did listen, that is true; however, where we have a massive failure is with the action taken from the listening. It is really fantastic the government comes and listens, but if it fails to take action on what our farmers are saying it is for nought. I have Senator McKenzie's report here, which I acknowledge. There are nine recommendations and areas for action; however, in this particular piece of legislation—which is great to see—before the House only two get addressed. So there is a long, long way to go. I have to say to the minister: consultation is important, but if you fail to act you lose the trust of the people you have been consulting with.
Let us leave that aside, because part of the discussion I want to have today is about the fact the crisis has not gone away and there is still a lot to be done. I am really pleased that the member for Murray acknowledges that the government sees there is a crisis. That is good. The second thing I would like to talk about in my speech today is what is happening in northeast Victoria with a fantastic, innovative, local grassroots model of how communities are getting together to actually take action on their behalf.
But first I need to talk about some of the indicators that the crisis has not gone away, that we are not debating in isolation here. In my own area, the charitable donations and money in terms of food vouchers—$45,000—is almost gone. There is nothing left in the local kitty to give out to farmers. There are a number of reasons for this. Farmers are either not getting farm household allowance, which the member for Hunter talked about, or, if they do get the allowance, for many of them it is very, very low. Businesses in the area are also struggling: they are not getting paid because the dairy farmers cannot pay their bills. There is a lot of financial pain and there are mental health issues, and increasingly people are not in a fit state to make good business decisions. There is underlying anger; people are in shock and they are struggling. There is a whole lot of evidence that it has not gone away. There are real problems that were identified in Senator McKenzie's good report and the government needs to take action urgently on it. That report is before the House; it does not need any more words from me.
I would now like to particularly focus my comments on some of the fantastic work that is happening in northeast Victoria. At this point I would like to acknowledge some of the members in the public gallery today. It is great to have you here. Thanks for making the effort to come to Canberra. What I want to talk about is northeast Victoria and the Alpine Valleys. The Alpine Valleys are the Kiewa Valley, the Mitta Valley and the Murray Valley, and a bit of the Ovens and King valleys. This community have got together and they have formed a grassroots community group called the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project. They have done some really strategic thinking about global impacts on dairying and how they can work locally. I am very proud to be their representative and to bring to the House a model of how we can manage and work with the crisis we are facing, and I call on the government to see, in partnership with this community group, if we can replicate it in other areas of the dairy industry and agricultural industries. This model has got huge potential to get grassroots communities, local government authorities, state governments and industry to all work together. I am a really big advocate for that and I would like to bring it to the attention of the minister at the table, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and say: can we think about how this model can be duplicated in other communities?
In acknowledging the work of this committee, and I am going to talk about it in some detail, I would like to put in Hansard the tremendous leadership role of the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project in their community and to say thank you to Stuart. And in talking about Stuart, I also acknowledge the role of Sarah and all of the partners. We all know these things do not happen—there is no such thing as 'a farmer'; there are farming families and farming businesses. So I acknowledge you—Lauren, Scott, Pat, Patten and Lachie—and all of your families. I also acknowledge the members of the steering committee: the North East CMA; the local processor Murray Goulburn; the North East Local Learning and Employment Network; Murray Dairy, which is the Commonwealth government and local research and development team; Rural Financial Counselling Service; the local governments of Indigo, Wangaratta, Towong, and Alpine, who form the steering committee; and the education services and providers who are also there. The steering committee is wide-reaching and it covers off most of the service providers and the farmers in the Alpine Valleys.
The AVDPP was established in 2011 and it is a unique model. It began as a grassroots movement driven by farmers, and is now actively supported by all of those people on the steering committee. The project's aim is to provide strong, consistent and cohesive messages about how we can work together to grow and develop dairying in northeast Victoria. It decided to take a leadership role. It set clear goals. It has a comprehensive strategic plan to actually grow milk production 80 per cent by 2025, and that would actually mean growing the local industry by 400 million litres in the Alpine Valleys by 2025. Recent Dairy Australia figures indicate milk production in the region has already increased by 30 per cent in the last 10 years, despite the drought, so there is so huge potential to grow it more.
The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project model has proven a powerful tool in creating change and has delivered several high-quality projects to date which focus on education, farm succession planning and transition, and planning for growth. It has grown to be a well respected voice for the dairy industry in north-east Victoria. We are seeing great change happen across all levels of government because of this community leadership.
I would like to read into the Hansard and bring to the attention of the government some of the priority areas that the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project members are working in and are considering for the future. They are looking for a medium- to long-term planning approach so, as we move through this discussion of farm household support, we have actually got to think about the medium and long term. We have got to talk about water security. We need to talk about supporting farm succession and transition. We need to talk about agriculture in schools. We need to talk about place based ownership and solutions. The logic of one size fitting everybody just does not work in rural and regional Australia. As we heard in the discussion about child care, we have got to be able to have place based solutions that respond to local needs.
We really need to keep up with technology and innovation. There has been a resounding call from me, as the member for Indi, that we have got to do better with NBN. We have got to do better with mobile phones because these dairy businesses are hugely technologically connected. Moving your electric fences and doing all the work that comes with it relies on technology that relies on mobile phone connectivity. I will talk in another time and place about how disappointed I am that the mobile phone project ended, that there is no money for round 4.
Mr Chester: You got the lot.
Ms McGOWAN: Yes, we did well in Indi, didn't we? But there is no round 4. I have to say to the minister, there are still 150 identified black spots in Indi. We need more in the budget.
Mr Chester: We will get you more in the budget.
Ms McGOWAN: Thank you for that. I look for to working with you on that. Mobile phone technology is really important.
Another issue is positive messaging about the industry. We hear about the crisis and the demise but in fact the industry has got a fantastic future. And we need to talk more about the business skills. As we move, develop and grow, how do we actually get the business skills to our farming families? That includes working with farmers as employers. They are some of the issues that the Alpine Valleys farmers are working on.
I want to move on to an amazing thing that this community did in addressing the crisis that we are facing in the dairy industry. Last Wednesday, a community meeting was called and 100 farming people turned up to that meeting including service providers and local government representatives. I was delighted to welcome the member for Mayo, representing the Nick Xenophon Team, who came and spoke about the Nick Xenophon Team's agricultural policy. I have to say how well she was received. Thank you, member for Mayo, for coming, and we really look forward to working with you as you develop your agricultural policies. There is a lot in what you have got to offer us.
As a result of that meeting, I was asked to bring a number of issues to Canberra. The representatives wanted a clear vision of how community groups like the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project can actually work with government. They said, 'But, Cathy, where do we fit? Where is government going to work with us? What is the connectivity here between a community group that has got all the industry together in a region and the Commonwealth government?' They were so right because there is no connectivity. What do they do? How can they have input into the industry when there is no place for them? They need a clear vision for links between government, industry and community groups.
The representatives also asked for a strategic approach for all levels of education. They see that educating not only farmers but the workforce is going to be key for the future. The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project, I have to commend them. They have done a fantastic job working with Tallangatta high school not only in getting educational programs out onto the farms but also in building with the careers teacher an understanding of all the other fantastic jobs that go with agriculture—the science, the marketing, the manufacturing, the distribution, the education, the international trade—that we can offer in rural and regional Australia if and when we have a growing agricultural sector.
Education is really important as is investment in the next generation. There is no shortage of young people who want to come to agriculture and be involved in the industry but the how is a real challenge. So one of the projects that the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathway Project is working on is farm succession and transition. How can you provide security for the older farmers who want to stay a little bit in agriculture through maybe share farming, helping with the financing, so we get the new generation coming in and get the transfer of skill and knowledge and all that wonderful culture of our community passed on to a new generation. The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathway Project is actively working there.
I want to put some data on the table about how important the dairy industry is already in my electorate and what enormous potential it has to grow. In Indi, just in the north-east, 80 per cent of the arable land is used by the dairy industry. It is 30 per cent of the farm gate income, which is huge. We have got over 750 effective full-time local jobs working on farm, in manufacturing and in the service industry. That is not inconsiderable, 750 jobs. We estimate that is over $380 million into the supply chain so this is a really significant industry.
While we are going through change, there is opportunity. It does not have to be the end. I really support this debate today to say, okay, the farm household allowance is a stopgap measure to provide a safety net but where is the plan? Where do we want the dairy industry to grow to? That is the main thing I want to talk about today. The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project have got a plan to lift performance of all farmers up to the top 25 per cent. They are really focusing on people, engagement, knowledge transfer and new skills. They are implementing their workforce strategy, bringing kids out of school and talking about where the jobs are. They are actually working on farm succession and transition and have a target of 50 per cent of farm family businesses having a strategy in place. What an innovation that is: actually working with your farmers—and that is all your farmers, your young farmers and your oldies—to have a transition scheme in place now so that you can bring people with you; you can have the change; and you can grow your industry.
And they are really actively working on the schools engagement process. I am a great fan, clearly, of education and how important it is. It needs to happen at schools. It needs to happen in vocational education and training. And we need then to work with our universities to make sure that we have the degree courses and the pathways through. I am delighted to say that we do have that in Indi. We have great work happening with La Trobe University and CSU. It is good to have you there.
But finally my comments are these. We have an opportunity with the dairy industry. Sure, it is going through a crisis, but we will move through that. With the right partnership and the right vision from government about how we can work together, we can really grow this industry.
In closing: representatives from this community meeting will be in parliament in the week of 20 March. I look forward to bringing them to Canberra, introducing them to the relevant ministers and their staff and talking about how we can take this fantastic model and grow it in my electorate but also take it to those other electorates throughout Australia that need a bit of a road map about how they can move from crisis to growth. The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project is doing the work. It is growing businesses, and it is growing leaders.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (12:46): I am pleased to talk about the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017, but I want to start off with a little tact, and that is to say that farmers do not want support. Farmers do not want support.
Ms McGowan interjecting—
Mr BROAD: Hold on. If you talk to the average farmer, you will find that, when they set out, they do not set out to be reliant upon the government. They do not set out to try to seek support. What they set out to do is something that is unique, and that is to turn water, sunshine, soil and effort into profitability.
Mr Chester: Into wine!
Mr BROAD: Some of that profitability is in wine, as I hear the member for Gippsland say. Some of it is in grain. Some of it is in sheepmeat. Some of it is in wool. Some of it is in so many different agricultural products that we are blessed with a very, very rich agricultural land.
I can talk a little bit about this because I am a farmer—I am still a farmer—and have at times applied for farmer support. I want to give a bit of an overview of the journey through that. But really what creates opportunity is doing two things—that is, increasing profit and decreasing cost. If you can address those two things, that is the first step. Farmer support is the ambulance at the bottom of the hill. What we want is the fence at the top of the hill. We want people to be able to make a profit from going about their farming activities.
When I was 16 we had some old wethers. Wethers, for those who do not know, are male sheep that have had an operation and are used for producing wool. We could not get 20c a head for those wethers. As a 16-year-old, I and my mate had to line up and shoot those sheep. We had to shoot those sheep and put them in a hole. My dad could not bring himself to do it. In those days, we were exporting sheepmeat to 12 countries around the world. Not last year but the year before, when it was a drought, and just recently, last year, on my farm, I was able to sell old sheep with no teeth—no teeth because they are old; their teeth had fallen out, but they were very old—and I got $135 a head. We now export sheepmeat to 96 countries around the world.
There are some, particularly in the Pauline Hanson's One Nation party in the Senate, who will tell us that trade does not equal wealth. Well, I want to tell you that, when it comes to agricultural products, trade equals wealth. The thing you can do to help farmers, who do not really want support, is increase their opportunity for profit and decrease their costs. Across the Wimmera and Mallee, which are the area that I represent, arguably the best part of Victoria, certainly the best part of Australia, a lot better than Gippsland—
Mr Chester interjecting—
Mr BROAD: Gippsland is too hilly, too wet and too cold, whereas the Wimmera and Mallee, of course, have the mix of the Grampians in the south and also the lovely warm weather in the north. They have been huge beneficiaries of the free trade agreements. We have seen table grapes go from 12 shipping containers to 34 shipping containers a year and now all the way up to nearly 1,000 shipping containers, with $190,000 worth of table grapes in a shipping container. We have seen citrus that is now very profitable as we are benefiting from the counterseasonal horticulture. We have seen prime lamb prices now at record levels, up to $8 a kilogram. I sold mine the other day for $6.20, and I am giving Barnaby a hard go. He is the agriculture minister; he should have got me $8! But we are seeing huge profitability.
At the same time, though, we are seeing our costs increase, and that is the challenge for us. We need to make sure that, wherever possible, we can reduce the costs of doing business. One of the things that are a cost particularly on the agricultural sector is electricity. There is a debate going on in this place about the reliability of electricity. You can only have an abattoir that can work effectively if you have a good power supply. I saw this when I was in Argentina, a competitor country for us for meatworks. As the slaughter works were going through, every now and then they would shut down. The power would shut down. Making sure that we can increase profits and decrease costs is essential.
But can I also say that there will always be farmers who exit the industry. Ever since the country was set up in soldier-settler properties, those properties have been consolidating and getting bigger. That is the challenge for us. There are some people who you will not help. But the other thing you have to remember is that the one thing that makes farmers profitable is their pride and their stubbornness. I think it is a great attribute of the Australian people but is also a challenge when we deal with issues of mental health across the farm sector. I was Vice President of the Victorian Farmers Federation through Black Saturday and then president through the floods, so I have seen what stress people can go through.
When we are working through the issue of the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill and how we actually implement this, it needs to be said that, when farmers go in to Centrelink, it is very confronting for them. They are proud people, and they feel at times somewhat of a failure for going in and applying for farm household allowance. I know this because in 2002 I was—let me think for a moment and work it out: I bought my farm in 1998, when I was 22, so that would make me 26 in 2002—in debt to my eyeballs with a working wife. The drought of 2002 was nothing like we have seen recently. I think 2002 was marginally less bad then 1982, but it was certainly a bad drought. I went into Centrelink. I felt very uncomfortable going into Centrelink. I had to come up with $90,000—I think off the top of my head—and I had no income. It was a bit of a challenge as to how I was going to keep the bank off my back. To Centrelink's credit they established that I was a farmer. They took me off to a separate area and said, 'Here's the paperwork. We can assist you going through the paperwork.' We did that, and I filled out the paperwork as well as I could. I did not get an accountant to fill out the paperwork. I did not have any money to pay an accountant. They assured me that it all looked pretty good and pretty proper. My wife was an occupational therapist. She was working, earning about $31,000 a year. I remember that because it was very pertinent, because at the time, because my wife was working, I was ineligible for anything. We were sent two letters saying we were ineligible because of that and because we were unviable. That was my interaction with the federal government. I took that letter and got a nail and an old grinder spanner, for anyone who has been to a shearing shed, and I nailed the letter to the shearing shed. I said, 'I'll prove to you who's unviable,' and went shearing, went working in a shearing shed, went rouseabouting—whatever I could. We managed to renegotiate with the bank and to find some money to scrape together for an interest-only payment and, lo and behold, I am still here and still have a profitable farm. I was viable.
Farmers do not seek out support, but there is value in having a system where we say to the farmers who are doing their best to turn water, sunshine, soil and effort into profitability that we are walking the journey with them. Of course, farm household assistance in the context of the budget that you lay out as a farmer is not a lot of money. It does not even touch the sides, but it does give some reassurance to some of those people who are hardworking Australians that we believe in what they are doing. We cannot turn our back on people. There does need to be a farm household support package.
These amendments are good. My office deals with a lot of desperate people who come in at times. We have been finding that the farm household support package has been a bit of a dogs breakfast. It has not changed that much from when I applied for it in 2002, in that people would go through all the paperwork and there was a long lag time with assessment. They would not feel that they had a government that was walking the journey with them. These amendments, frankly, should be supported by every side of the parliament. I hope that these amendments are not partisan, because they are simply about making it quicker for a person who is eligible to access assistance. When you are walking that journey you do not always think clearly, I have to say. It is confronting to have to bury your pride a little bit and go and talk to Centrelink. But if there is a lag time and it is so long and then it is just a complete balls up in trying to fill it in, that does not send a very good message. These amendments will make it a lot quicker.
Australia has never been very good at developing a proper drought policy. If you look at the history of the Commonwealth, you will see that for 117 droughts have come and droughts have gone, but we have not developed a very good drought policy. I think we still do not have one, but I believe there are a few things we should look at very seriously. I believe the purpose of seasonal insurance is something that has not been given enough emphasis, but there are packages that are starting to be developed. For example, on your farm business you might write out cheques for $250,000 to $300,000 to put a crop in. There you go, you have just laid $300,000 on the gambling table. The packages that are being developed are along the lines of your having to pay for an outlay like that about $10,000 in additional insurance premiums. If the season was a decile 1 year—a year when you do not get even your input cost back—you would get that $300,000 back. You are not hedging your profit; you are simply hedging your input cost. That is something that we need to provide some more support towards as we think through what is a good drought assistance package for Australia.
Our government has increased farm management deposits from $400,000 to $800,000. That has been a welcome increase because for some farmers that is not even the trading outlay for a 12-month period. I guess where we want to land ultimately is that if a farmer is thinking through their business schedule they should put some money aside as an insurance package so that they can get their input cost in a bad season and they should have some farm management deposits, which would allow that farmer to cover the interest component for 12 months in a drought year. Then, what I think would be a very worthwhile response, we could look at paying half the shire rates of landholders who are actively farming. It is equitable, it is simple to administer and it has been done before. Ultimately, if you want to instil an example of working with the farm sector, you would just go: 'Right, your farm rates bill this year is $10,000—that is what it normally is. We recognise that you're in a roaring drought. We're going to give you a farm rates bill of $5,000.' So effectively the federal government would be subsidising the local councils. It would keep the money in the local districts. It is a very simple way of doing that. It requires fewer bureaucrats in Canberra to administer it. The only thing you would have to make sure of is that the rates burden is also being passed on to lessors of ground, so the person who is actively farming receives the benefit. But I think, ultimately, you would do something towards helping the farm sector set up for the future.
Farmers do not want support. They do not actively seek support. They actively seek the opportunity to create profit from their hard work, from the soil, from the water, from the sunshine. We are very blessed to have Australian farmers. We stand beside them when they have got difficult times. But, ultimately, the decisions we set up in here should be more about creating opportunities and reducing costs than focusing just on farm household support.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:00): I rise to speak on and support the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. I must note that it is pleasing to see the government working to address the issues that many have raised with me in relation to the farm household allowance. The complexity of the scheme has been a thorn in the side of farmers in my electorate and across the country.
The future of agriculture is something that is of particular interest and concern to me. My electorate is mostly rural and contains what I believe is the best agricultural produce in Australia. As I have often said in this House, we have apples, pears, cherries, strawberries and also beef, sheep and a range of crops. We certainly consider ourselves the food bowl of South Australia. I have seven different wine regions in my electorate as well—and they are farmers too—and a large dairy industry with 93 dairy farmers within the borders of my electorate.
As has been discussed many times in this place, by 2050 world population is expected to reach 10 billion people. That will provide a great challenge to our farmers, particularly as Australia's population is expected to be around 50 million, but I believe it also provides tremendous opportunity for the agricultural sector. But there is no doubt it is a sector with a number of challenges and that it is also in transition.
I have spoken at length about the future I see for Australian agriculture and how, if we put the right measures in place now, we will all benefit tremendously in the future. One of those benefits is supporting our farmers, because we really are on the verge of a great dining boom. For the last two decades, the Australian agricultural industry has been overshadowed by mining, yet the most recent statistics show more than 300,000 people are employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing nationwide compared to 230,000 people employed in mining. For too long, I believe, our farmers have been a forgotten driver of our economy and somewhat of an afterthought when we have times of great adversity. I think it is fair to say that governments of all persuasions have often been slow to act. It is time that this parliament and our nation paid better attention to farmers.
This bill begins to address the issues that have plagued the farm household allowance program. Farmers that I have spoken to talk about the complexity of applying for support and the lost productivity on account of having to be filling in applications and stressing about them rather than working the land. I applaud the government for recognising some of the flaws of the scheme.
This bill helps existing farmers by removing the waiting periods that apply to farm household allowance and ensures that anyone who is deemed eligible can access the payment immediately instead of waiting, in some cases, up to 14 weeks for payment. Farmers are not unemployed jobseekers. They are often employers themselves, and these are commonsense changes that will support the industry. It is completely reasonable that those who are deemed eligible and therefore deemed as being in hardship can access support immediately.
This bill also makes commonsense changes to the assets test to include water rights and shares in marketing cooperatives as farm assets rather than nonfarm assets. This is a sensible change and will bring more clarity to applicants who to this point have been very confused—and quite rightly so—over the distinction between farm and nonfarm assets.
Last week, at the invitation of the member for Indi, I visited Wodonga in Victoria. Whilst there I addressed a meeting of local dairy farmers and spoke at length about the challenges facing the industry. One of the topics for discussion was the complexity of the application for farm household allowance. Again, I am so pleased to see that the government has taken steps to address these concerns, but there are many other concerns that I believe this parliament should also be considering.
Along with my colleague Senator Nick Xenophon, I have approached the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, regarding the application of the farm household allowance in relation to aquaculture. As it stands, wild-catch fishers are not eligible to receive support and some have seen significant depletion of fish stocks due to issues beyond their control. You could almost say it is a drought of the sea. Yet owners of oyster farms and tuna pens are eligible. I see this as a gross inequity. Support for the industry means support for the whole industry, and wild-catch fishers are certainly not immune to the pressures of the environment in which they work.
For example, the Lower Lakes and Coorong fishers have been challenged by significant increase in numbers in native long-nosed fur seals in the waters off the bottom of my electorate. This causes indiscriminate damage to the fish that are caught in nets and the nets themselves. This has resulted in serious ongoing costs to fishers, their businesses and their households, and yet, because they operate without a right or interest in land, they do not receive the same support as other fishers or, indeed, land based primary producers.
In a broader sense, I will continue to encourage the government to address emerging and ongoing issues that farmers face. After speaking extensively with farmers in my own electorate and now with farmers in Victoria, it is clear that there are many issues that cross state lines.
Farming is undergoing somewhat of a transition, as I said earlier, with the average age of a farmer now 54 years, and that is only increasing. There is no point of a boom in agriculture if there is no-one around on the farm to work. We need to put strategies in place to entice younger generations into the industry, and I believe this starts in the schoolyard.
My attention has been drawn to a program currently operating out of Mansfield Secondary College in Victoria that allows year 9 and 10 students to obtain vocational qualifications in agriculture by pairing them with local farmers who are providing mentoring to them. The students spend one day per week on a farm doing practical work and study geography and agscience in schools. Not only does this greatly beneficial for the students; but the farmers who have been involved so far are delighted with the program. It is great to see young hands on a farm, and it has wide-reaching benefits, including strengthening of ties in rural community ties and showing students that there is a viable career to be pursued in agriculture. Programs such as these, I believe, should be supported by the parliament and by the government, so that we can build the next generation. If we create the conditions that enable success, Australian farmers will thrive under their own steam, just like they always have.
I think many here are aware of the number of issues facing dairy farmers in particular. Since the deregulation of Australia's dairy industry in 1999, the number of dairy farmers has decreased and the volume of production has decreased from more than 11 billion litres in 2002 to nine billion litres in 2010. This is despite Australia's population growing. I want to see the dairy industry growing and thriving, not shrinking. I fear that the ongoing supermarket price war will have a deep impact on the industry. I meet with dairy farmers who are up at dawn for the first milking, and when the sun goes down they are still milking. They are often the farmers who are seeking this farm household assistance. It is just not right. My colleague Senator Xenophon is currently involved in the Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into the dairy industry, and we all are awaiting their final report on 30 March.
As I said earlier, dairy is a significant industry in my electorate. Just like what we are doing here, the government recognised that the industry needed support and implemented the dairy concessional loans scheme. But, while these are federally funded, they are managed by the states, and this has led to inconsistency in application and process. In my state, the dairy concessional loans have been underutilised. I believe this is, in part, due to the state government refusing to consider water allocations and livestock as part of the land value when assessing eligibility. This is quite different to the Tasmanian government's administration of the same scheme, in which both water rights and livestock are assessed. This means that a farm's asset pool—means they have a much greater chance of being able to apply for the concessions loan scheme. I am advocating for these to be added as part of a federal government directive to the states to allow greater access to the loan scheme. We are also advocating strongly for dairy farmers who are outside of Fonterra and Murray Goulburn contracts to also have access to assistance as low farmgate prices are affecting every farmer, not just those connected with Murray Goulburn or Fonterra.
I think it is important to remember that farmers are not looking for a handout. That is certainly not what this bill does. All of the farmers I speak to pride themselves on not leaning on government subsidies like their Japanese, US and European counterparts do. At the same time, it is our responsibility as elected representatives to ensure that we do all we can to support industries in time of need. These measures do that, and I commend the government for introducing them.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (13:10): I rise to speak in support of the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. Before I speak on that, though, I just wanted to remind the House of the background to the act that these amendments apply to. Before the coalition introduced the farm household allowance through the Farm Household Support Act 2014, the House should remember that there was no payment generally available to farmers in hardship outside of what was known as 'exceptional circumstances'. Exceptional circumstances declarations were abolished by the former Labor government such that farmers throughout Australia had no trigger upon which to seek support whilst their families and their businesses were in temporary hardship.
Successive reviews of policy over the years recommended that the government establish a hardship payment that is available at all times, not just during drought. These include the 2009 Productivity Commission report on government drought support, the 2011 review of the Western Australia drought pilot and the 2013 intergovernmental agreement on national drought program reform, a process in which I participated, formerly having agriculture responsibilities in Queensland. In that role at the time, I knew full well—when our state was dealing with unprecedented drought on top of a significant bushfire season in North Queensland across some of the extensive pastoral holdings, leading up into the cape for example, and of course the continued backlash from the former Labor government's decision about the live cattle export trade to Indonesia—that our state LNP government at the time stood up to support farmers, with an unprecedented package for those needing assistance, given all of those circumstances. I remember quite well when the bill that is the basis of these amendments was debated in this House in 2014. On behalf of Queensland farmers at the time and graziers, and those even in my own region of the Darling Downs, I thanked the coalition government then and I do so again now as a member of that coalition government.
The farm household allowance is not just about drought. It recognises farm families can experience difficulty in different ways and at different times. The allowance is delivered by the Department of Human Services and is paid fortnightly at a rate equivalent to Newstart allowance or youth allowance for those under 22 years of age. A healthcare card is provided to recipients and support is also provided through a dedicated case manager to help recipients assess their situation and, most importantly, to develop a plan for the future. Eligible farmers and their partners are able to access up to three years of payment. That is designed to give farm families time to get back on their feet and have the opportunity to take steps to improve their circumstances—as I said, based on a plan for the future.
Here we are now at a stage where, based on ongoing consultation regarding farm household allowance, the government has continued to listen to the concerns of farmers and is, therefore, introducing these amendments. They are about, as we have heard, improving the delivery of the payments to make it easier for those who are experiencing hardship, whilst appropriately maintaining a robust application and assessment process.
The amendments will more precisely define the farm assets used in the running of these farm businesses that are under pressure—such as water assets and shares in farming cooperatives—when assessing eligibility. When determining the eligibility, they will be properly treated in the same light as land, equipment and machinery that are simply needed to run a farm business. As we have heard, they remove the requirement to serve an ordinary liquid assets waiting period before people can receive payment. Therefore, those in need will now be able to receive payments at the earliest possible opportunity.
I certainly am pleased that thus far the Farm Household Support Scheme has provided support to a significant number of farmers, farm families and their partners right across the country. In my own state of Queensland, very recent statistics indicate that 2,014 farming operations have been granted the assistance of a farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Scheme during the life of the scheme. That is about 30 per cent of those granted across the nation. I am advised that, at present, we have 1,293 farming families in Queensland receiving assistance. That is about 25 per cent of the national figure. That is particularly important. That ongoing assistance right across the country is very much appreciated, certainly in my region.
I noted earlier that the member for Hunter suggested in his speech that farmers do not want assistance or loans. We certainly know that farmers would prefer not to have to seek assistance or be offered assistance from the government, but the circumstances that prevail in some of our farming operations and businesses across the nation—and they are the lifeblood of our nation, the lifeblood of our international trade, as current statistics prove—are such that assistance does need to be provided to support them, to support regional communities and to support our economy. I remind the member for Hunter that we have delivered $622 million in approved loans to 1,161 farmers. Prior to our coming to office, only eight loans had been granted under Labor.
On the other side of the coin, in terms of future development for agriculture, he also suggested, especially in his reference to horticulture, that we have no plans to open trade. I think I can fairly say that no more ridiculous statement has been made in this House, because the simple facts are that we have delivered three key free trade agreements. We have ensured that new import protocols enabling nectarines to be imported into China from Australia are in place. New protocols for table grapes in 2014 resulted in a 244 per cent increase in exports to Japan in the 2015 year, and new protocols in September 2016 for melons and pumpkins imported into Japan benefit 380 rockmelon, watermelon and honeydew melon growers and about 800 pumpkin growers. We are seeing similar protocols being achieved for horticulture, particularly citrus, imported into Korea.
The comments from the member for Hunter are typical of those opposite who do not understand what it is like to be under pressure in regional communities throughout our country. They do not understand, as this side of the House does, what it is like to stand with farmers who suffer from bushfires—as I did in North Queensland a few years ago—and to stand with them on their drought-affected properties and their flooded properties. These are farmers who say, 'We don't want to put our hand out. We just want to remain productive. But please keep us going such that we can support our families, our towns, our communities, our states and the national economy.'
When the coalition government came to power in 2013 there was simply an empty cupboard on drought policy. Labor had abolished the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy. Not only that, it had effectively cut the department of agriculture's budget in half. They abolished Land & Water Australia, for example, and threatened the longstanding policy of matching farmers' research and development levies to support our research and development corporations. People should remember that it was Labor who asked the Productivity Commission to review the rural research and development system in our country. Clearly, they wanted to access those taxpayer funds contributed by producers so they could go towards their other priorities, which certainly would not have considered farmers or regional Australia.
By contrast, the coalition government has confirmed that farmers' research and development funds will be prioritised. The funds of those levy payers will be prioritised towards projects with the intention of boosting farmgate returns. We have strengthened the R&D system, and here I refer, amongst other things, to the $190 million Rural Research and Development for Profit initiative.
It is particularly important to reflect on the fact that during this debate many speakers have mentioned that farmers are not looking for assistance. They do not want to have to put their hand out, but because we, as a community and as a nation, depend on them and depend on their productivity going forward, we recognise—and they ultimately recognise—that we need to keep those businesses going, hence my reference to R&D support for agriculture from the coalition government. That is the important other side of the coin, if you like. Sure, we need to step up and provide support when support is necessary in times of drought, flood and other circumstances that from time to time provide great crisis conditions throughout regional Australia in this great country. But, at the same time, we must continue to drive productivity.
I have stood with farmers, I have stood with graziers—and I can refer to many examples in Central Queensland—who, with tears in their eyes, with their teenage children home from school because they cannot afford the expense of keeping them at school in their senior years because they cannot afford to employ anyone else to assist them on the farm, have said to me: 'John, we don't want to ask but we do need some help. Help us through and, most particularly, please continue to focus on productivity in agriculture throughout Australia, with research and development, be it in our cotton industry, our horticulture industry or our grains and beef industries, particularly in the north, where this government is so focused on the development of Northern Australia, such that we can continue to support the economy of Australia as it drives trade and as it drives relationships with those countries who are demanding our product. Please continue those trade relationships as well.' That is what they have said to me. That is what farmers, graziers, horticultural producers and dairy farmers all across this country who encounter difficult circumstances from time to time are saying to our government, and that is why our government is standing up and continuing to deliver for them.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:23): I, like the other people on the Labor side, on this side of the House, am here to say that we do support the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 that is before us today, but I want to point out that it has been a long time coming. We knew that this was an issue, that farmers were struggling to have access to farm household assistance. We knew that they were having issues with this back in 2014. We asked several questions of the minister back in 2014. But rather than addressing the concerns that farmers were raising, that rural financial counselling services were raising and that organisations were raising back in 2014, what the minister did back then was embellish his answer in question time and then try and change Hansard. We all remember Hansardgate. What this minister was trying to do was cover up what was actually going on in this sector.
The fact is that we have a broader problem with Centrelink. The fact is that we have a broader problem with staffing levels within Centrelink, and yet the government has chosen to ignore them since they were first raised. Back in 2014, when this side raised those questions, the minister dismissed them and did nothing until this moment. I cannot believe it has taken three years for this issue to finally be addressed in the House, through amendments to the legislation, to make it easier for our farmers to access this assistance. What was happening then in my part of the world was that our rural financial counselling service was one of the organisations raising concerns about the blow-out in time lines and that farmers were struggling to get support under this system. Rather than listening and taking on board those legitimate concerns, what people might remember is that the minister at the time had a review of financial counselling services. As a result of that review, we lost our rural financial counselling service based in Bendigo. So the people who raised the issue on behalf of the farmers—because the farmers were struggling to get access to their allowance—are no longer in a job. This government reviewed financial counselling services and then, all of a sudden, the service that raised this issue was no longer in service. So, in our part of the world, we are very concerned about the support and the counselling services that people in our region are now receiving, because this government has restructured and reorganised financial counselling services. Rather than admitting that there were problems back in 2014, that was the kind of trick that this government got up to. It is sad to see that it has taken so long for the government to acknowledge that there are faults in this program.
I have had the great opportunity and privilege of meeting a number of our dairy farmers just to the north of the Bendigo area, in regional Victoria. We do not distinguish ourselves based upon artificial electoral boundaries; that is something which we may organise ourselves on, but it is not how our communities organise. I have had the opportunity to meet with dairy farmers in the Gunbower area and with people in the dairy industry around Cohuna. What they say to me loudly and clearly is very similar to what the member for Hunter said, and that is that they do not want loans. Sure, at the moment, they may need to seek loans, but they actually do not want them. They want a sustainable dairy industry. They want this place and this government to get behind them and to help them, not to take three years to make amendments to legislation. Some of them now say they do not need help, but there is a new set of farmers that do need help.
Just how long were some of the wait times that farmers had been experiencing? When I spoke to people in the Murray Valley area in Gunbower, some of them were waiting five to six months to receive assistance. As the member for Mallee said, these are proud people. These are people who have worked really hard. They are proud people, and so for them to walk through that Centrelink door is a hard thing to do—absolutely. And they should not have to wait such a long time to receive support and assistance from their government. I also want to say that any worker who has to fall back onto our safety net is a proud person. For any worker to lose their job, to have a cut-back in hours or to be made redundant, it is very hard to walk through the Centrelink door that first time. Some of the comments from our farmers about how demoralising it has been, how heartbreaking it has been and how hard it has been are the same comments being made by other people who find themselves having to fall back on our safety net.
I am disappointed that this government does not treat workers who have been made redundant or workers who have had their hours cut with the same level of respect and compassion with which they treat our farmers. I call on the government to treat all people requiring the support of Centrelink with the same dignity and respect that they are calling for for our farmers. It does not matter whether you are a retrenched manufacturing worker or a farmer who has been crippled by Murray Goulburn milk prices, you deserve the same dignity and respect. You deserve to have the Centrelink phone call that you make answered in a timely fashion. You deserve to have your Centrelink form processed in a timely fashion and not have to wait five to six months like our farmers and like other people seeking assistance have had to do.
This is a bill that does support our farmers and our farming community—great people who have worked really hard and continue to work hard who do need the support of our social welfare system through moments of hardship, whether it be drought or whether it be a crisis like Murray Goulburn, as we have seen just to the north of the Bendigo electorate—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Bendigo will be given an opportunity to complete her contribution then.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Cregan, Associate Professor Patrick Charles, AM
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (13:30): Associate Professor Patrick Cregan AM was a brilliant surgeon, teacher and natural leader. He was a passionate advocate and a dedicated father, husband, friend and colleague. In January this year, Lindsay lost a great asset to our community, a man who dedicated his life to medicine.
There are many things I could talk about when it comes to Dr Cregan. Being a brilliant surgeon is one; being a tireless advocate for equity in health care is another. He was trained to save lives and improve patient outcomes. He was not trained to fight for a higher health budget funding allocation or advocate for a tired, always under-resourced and overlooked hospital. That was the additional gift he gave to the people of our community: he was painfully aware of the pressures faced by the hospital, so he was outspoken and innovative in his approach to get coverage so that people in places like this knew the struggles were real. He never, ever stopped fighting.
He had wins on the board with his tireless dedication to Nepean Hospital, but, sadly, the fight for our hospital continues in his absence. Today we still campaign for better, more adequate funding of Nepean Hospital. His endless commitment to the hospital will be honoured in this place for as long as I represent my community of Lindsay. Our hospital is in a dire state, with a complete lack of acknowledgement by the O'Farrell, Baird and Berejiklian state Liberals, and the Abbott-Turnbull federal Liberals.
I wish to thank Pat for his dedication to our community, and I offer his family—Suzanne, Rebecca, James, Edward, Thomas, Isabel, Charlotte, Louisa, Louie and Lillian—my sincere condolences and thank you for sharing Patrick with us and for the sacrifices this must have meant for you as a family. I hope Labor's continued advocacy, and mine, following on from your father's dedication, is of some comfort in honouring the tireless work he undertook for our area. May he rest in peace. (Time expired)
O'Connor Electorate: School Leadership
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:31): I rise today to give a big shout-out to two amazing independent public school principals in my electorate of O'Connor. I congratulate Maxine Augustson, of Mount Lockyer Primary School, and Kerry Mather, of Manjimup Senior High School, who will visit the USA in May to participate in the IPS Principals' Fellowship Program. Both women well deserve this opportunity to expand their horizons as leaders and innovators, through Harvard's Graduate School of Education.
I have visited both of their schools and was impressed by the provision of education and amenity that the IPS system allows. Maxine and Kerry have complete autonomy and are responsible for staff recruitment, financial management, governance and accountability. I know Maxine has hand-picked specialist teachers who suit the particular needs of her student cohort, giving consideration to the broader multicultural community. At Kerry's school, with many students coming from an agricultural background, a self-sustaining farm, timber plantation and vocational education and training program teaches important trade skills relevant to local career opportunities. I commend both women for tailoring their school's services to provide support beyond the curriculum for their students. Currently, more than half of WA's 800 government schools are now IPS, so to be selected as two of the 20 WA representatives for this Harvard fellowship is a real accolade.
I am pleased to note the federal government has funded 75 per cent of this fellowship program, and I know Maxine and Kerry will capitalise on this valuable opportunity to enhance their knowledge, mentor their peers and guide the direction of WA education into the future.
Tasmania: Health Care
Mr HART (Bass) (13:33): I spoke recently in the Federation Chamber to acknowledge the achievements of St.LukesHealth. It was recently recognised by Roy Morgan Research in its 2016 Customer Satisfaction Awards and was awarded the title of Private Health Insurer of the Year. Notwithstanding the fantastic efforts in customer service of St.LukesHealth, there are some significant constraints within my electorate on access to private health care.
The private health system and private health insurance play a key role in supporting the public health system. Labor strongly believes and affirms the importance of a public universal health system. In many markets, those who have private health insurance are able to access a fully functioning private alternative, thereby fulfilling the object of taking pressure off the public system.
In Northern Tasmania, we have recently lost access to maternity services for postnatal care, with the closure of the St Vincent's postnatal unit, and there is no private emergency department in Launceston, despite there being two private hospitals.
I acknowledge the good work of staff and specialists; however, much more needs to be done to ensure the full range of services is available in private health care in Northern Tasmania, supporting the stressed public healthcare system. Other areas have competing operators delivering innovation and new services. Launceston, and Northern Tasmania, need further investment in both our public and private healthcare systems to enable stress to be taken off the public hospital system.
Sugar Industry
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:34): It is a great pleasure to stand here today to formally put on the record my opposition to a push by technocratic think tanks and various others for sugar taxes. I fundamentally do not believe that we should be introducing a moralistic levy of around 40c per 100 grams of sugar simply to push forward the idea that we should decide people's consumption behaviour.
Rather than promoting the benefits of nutritious eating and exercise, health experts are increasingly outsourcing, or wanting to outsource, their efforts—particularly through the technocratic approach—to the Australian Taxation Office to enforce decisions on Australian society. Recent pushes have sought to appease the searing urge of many moralists who consistently attempt to engineer social outcomes by punishing people for exercising their free will.
Let's face it; research into similar levies in places like Denmark, Mexico, the United States and the UK show that sugar taxes do not work. But let us get past that and remind people that we already have our own type of sugar tax: we have a GST. Fresh food is exempt, and processed food is included. Yet some still want to impose more and more burdens on Australian households and taxpayers to try and dictate their behaviour.
Workplace Relations
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (13:36): I rise in this place to discuss the Fair Work Australia decision to cut penalty rates. Nearly 700,000 Australians will have their penalty rates cut, losing up to $77 a week. In Townsville, around 13,000 workers could be affected by this Fair Work decision; that is one in six workers. In a city where we have over 11 per cent unemployment and over 17 per cent youth unemployment, we cannot have cuts to the pay of one in six workers. It will destroy our local economy.
In Townsville, some of the biggest spenders are our university students. A lot of university students obtain work in the retail, hospitality and accommodation sectors, where they rely heavily on penalty rates. These students are not saving their money; they are spending it immediately in our economy. University students are not saving money to buy a house, instead they are buying smashed avo on toast from your local cafe.
It is ridiculous that casual retail workers will see their Sunday rates fall from 200 per cent to 175 per cent. Full- and part-time hospitality workers will also see a cut from 175 per cent to 150 per cent, and fast food full- and part-time workers will see rates drop from 175 per cent to 150 per cent.
For Townsville, if our university students get paid less, this means less money in their pockets to spend and in turn less money for our local businesses and local economy. I put it to the Prime Minister: take immediate action on penalty rates; don't pass the buck and just let the Townsville university students have enough money to buy their smashed avo on toast.
Red Balloon Day
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:37): I rise to speak about Red Balloon Day, which we acknowledged yesterday. From its humble beginnings in Geelong in 2014 Red Balloon Day has become national initiative, aimed at honouring and thanking the courageous and selfless firefighters Australia-wide on 28 February—of course, the last official day of summer.
The idea is simple: to fly red 'thank you, fireys' balloons from your letterbox, fence or office window to let our firefighters, both professional and volunteer, know how appreciated they are for their dedication and hard work in often dangerous, life-threatening conditions, leaving their own families, homes and sometimes their communities to help others.
Today is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. In 1983 Ash Wednesday fell on 16 February. On that day, with temperatures soaring to 43 degrees and north-easterly winds gusting at 75 kilometres an hour, 180 bushfires broke out across Victoria and South Australia. In my home state of South Australia, 159,000 hectares of land in the Adelaide Hills and South-East were torched. Hundreds of homes were lost and, most devastatingly, 75 lives, which included 17 firefighters.
Yesterday I flew the red 'thank you, fireys' balloons. Today, on Ash Wednesday, it is a fitting reminder of how much we value our firefighters, in particular the CFS volunteers in rural areas. These volunteers make up such an important part of so many communities in my electorate of Barker. I want to acknowledge to the House today their work and the work they stand ready to do.
Macquarie Electorate: SES Awards
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:39): I had the privilege of attending the presentation of annual awards for the State Emergency Services of the Blue Mountains last week. The SES works closely with the local police, as well as with the Rural Fire Service—another amazing volunteer organisation.
The SES awards recognise not only outstanding service, but also the training that volunteers go through to ensure their skills are up to scratch. And I want to mention John Hughes, the local controller, for his stewardship of the group. Together they spent more than 9000 hours in the last year, responding to 876 storm incidents and took part in 17 searches.
I was proud to present Gay Thornton with her 25-year national clasp and to see John Emdin receive his 15-year national medal and to see Richard Jackson-Hope presented with his 10-year New South Wales SES long-service medal by my colleague, the state member for the Blue Mountains Trish Doyle.
The SES is an organisation of 100 active volunteers with a busy load—with storms, assisting with bushfires and with the inevitable accidents that occur in our World Heritage area. And it might be a surprise to know that our Blue Mountains SES also plans for responding to floods, because even in our mountains we have dams and lakes that could put people at risk in certain circumstances. I think we would have to agree that, with the crazy weather we face these days, we need to be ready for anything—and the Blue Mountains SES is.
North Sydney Electorate: Haven Valley Scenic Theatre
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (13:41): Our national capital is linked to parts of my own electorate through the visionary hands of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahoney Griffin. Just as they shaped Canberra as the bush capital, so the Griffins were responsible for the celebrated planning and architecture of Castlecrag. Their vision was for a suburb created in harmony with the area's natural bushland and founded in a strong sense of community.
In the early 1930s Marion Mahoney Griffin established the Haven Valley Scenic Theatre to help bring the community together. The theatre was formed by the landscape of a Castlecrag gully and allowed theatregoers to witness productions under moonlight and the stars, surrounded by majestic eucalypts and the colour of wattle blooms.
Sadly, the theatre fell into disrepair, but was salvaged through the efforts of the local community in the mid-1970s. Today the community is again rallying to ensure its future. I was therefore thrilled to be able to attend the Sydney premiere of a spectacular circus opera, The Carnival, at the Chatswood Concourse to help raise funds for the rebuilding of the Haven amphitheatre stage.
The three performances raised over $58,000, and I want to congratulate all those involved in what was a major undertaking. Willoughby Council has allocated funds for the restoration of the Haven, which will need to be matched by contributions from the community. Their attendance at The Carnival demonstrates just how committed residents are to achieving this goal. I hope it will not be too long before the Haven once again is restored to its unique place in the community and cultural life of our city.
Burt Electorate: Armadale Kelmscott Memorial Hospital
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:42): Colin Barnett's Liberals have failed Western Australia on health, and people across my electorate are suffering as a result. Cuts at Armadale Kelmscott Memorial Hospital have seen surgery slots reduced by a third. The hospital has lost a full day of surgery each week, has cut down on the hours surgery is available through the rest of the week and there is not even enough to staff on hand to maintain those reduced hours if any of the staff call in sick.
Local GPs have expressed concerns that their patients cannot access the required services, and I have been told that specialists at the hospital are looking to leave because the working conditions have become so bad. In addition, pressure is being put on clinicians to recategorise patients to meet hospital board's KPIs, which, if done, would put patients' lives at risk.
Armadale hospital previously undertook more obstetric procedures than any other WA hospital of similar size and consistently performed above expectation. Now there is nowhere near as many, and all this when this hospital services the fastest-growing suburbs in Western Australia.
This is a symptom of the Barnett Liberal government's chronic and systemic failure to make patients a priority in the health system. WA Labor's Putting Patients First policy will free up hospital beds and reduce wait times through Medihotels and Urgent Care Clinics. WA's health system needs the fresh approach of a Mark McGowan Labor government, not another four years of Liberal neglect.
Fisher Electorate: University of the Sunshine Coast
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:44): The University of the Sunshine Coast in my constituency is emblematic of the transformation that is going on throughout our region. Like the Sunshine Coast as a whole, the university is growing fast and offering our young people new opportunities all the time. This year, a record 4,800 new students began studying at USC, bringing the total number to 13,450. This is three times as many people as studied there in 2005. The university has begun to offer new courses like midwifery and combined degrees in innovative ways. Students at the Coast can now study, for example, Bachelor of Laws with Bachelor of Environmental Management.
Dispelling the notion that young people are not engaged in politics, in the time I recently spent on the Liberal National Club's O-Week stall we had a great many students come to talk to us about the political process and the issues that they face. Fifty people signed up to find out more about politics in Australia. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Michael Negerevich for organising the stall, as well as Dr Adrian McCallum, Jak Hardy, Melissa Smith and my good friend the member for Fairfax for their support. The USC is changing young people's lives in my community and it is an important part of why the Sunshine Coast should be the place of choice in Australia for education, employment and retirement.
Water
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:45): The current government has for seven years and two elections promised the development of water in northern Australia. There is not a shovel load of concrete across a gutter in all of North Queensland. The rest of Australia has no rivers available, thanks to the green elements in the Liberal Party and in the Labor Party and in the Greens party. The party, I might add, of desolation and poverty is the fate of the people of northern Australia. We have three quarters of Australia's water and we are using virtually none of it. Outside of North Queensland there is only one river available for use and that is the Ord, and it has been given, not sold, to the Chinese. So we have the Ord—a development of the Chinese by the Chinese for the Chinese. That is—
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
Mr KATTER: There is a lady here from the ALP who is disagreeing with this. She is obviously a supporter of giving our water resources to the Chinese. What's your name? What's your electorate?
Ms Madeleine King: Brand.
Mr KATTER: Brand, is it? I put on record that the member for Brand thinks it is a good thing to give the water resources of northern Australia to a foreign corporation. (Time expired)
Melbourne Traffic Congestion
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:47): I rise again in this place to highlight the issue of traffic congestion in Melbourne. Indeed, the latest data shows that traffic congestion has risen by four per cent in the past year alone. The latest data also shows that workers are spending an average of 500 hours commuting each year and, indeed, are stuck in gridlock for an extra 34 minutes a day. Those who traverse the whole of Melbourne, from east to west, for example, are spending an average of 1,000 hours a year commuting. This of course reflects the population growth of Melbourne and Victoria. In Victoria, 86.7 per cent of people moving to the state from overseas settle in Melbourne. On current projections the population of Victoria will double from approximately five million people now to 10 million people over the next 40 years, eight million of which will reside in Melbourne. Indeed, we have seen a 600 per cent increase in the passenger kilometres travelled in Melbourne since 1945, but only a 330 per cent increase in the population. So the bottom line is that the development of infrastructure in Victoria has not kept up. That is why vital links like the East West Link and the North East Link need to be built and built quickly.
Medicare
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (13:48): Because of our physical human frailties—and I can see that some of us in this place are human—we cannot take health for granted. When people are sick or infirm, they need support to ensure they live happy and productive lives. They need to be able to rely on a health system that puts patients first and is available to all Australians, regardless of income and regardless of their ability to pay. Medicare is the cornerstone of our health system and government should be investing in Medicare to ensure people have access to health care when and where they needed. Unfortunately, we have seen how this government has squeezed Medicare, ripped away its funding, frozen the indexation of rebates and tried again and again to introduce a GP tax.
Government members interjecting—
Ms MADELEINE KING: Yes, they have. Labor opposes these attacks on Medicare and will always work to protect it, and Labor will always work to protect the penalty rates of health services workers who serve the Australian community around the country in the most difficult situations. In WA, I am very proud to say that Mark McGowan and Labor are putting patients first with a healthcare plan that puts patient outcomes front and centre on their health priorities. I am most pleased that my colleague Roger Cook, the member for Kwinana, in my electorate of Brand, is both deputy leader of WA Labor and shadow minister for health. He is a fantastic advocate for his great community of Kwinana, the place where I was born and which I now represent. Through freeing up hospital beds with medihotels and reducing pressures on hospital emergency departments with urgent care clinics, Labor in WA is working to better support patients and the health system. This is in stark contrast with Premier Barnett's failure to deliver a children's hospital, with lead in the water.
Chisholm Electorate: Multiculturalism
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (13:50): Hundreds of children at Pinewood Primary School in Chisholm, who reflect the diversity that make Chisholm the third most culturally diverse electorate in Australia, proudly sang our national anthem after the school leaders marched into the hall with our national flag. This defined the quintessential February day that takes places all over Australia at this time of year when leadership badges for the new school year are awarded. A small number of these young Australians nervously did not know that the custom and practice in this country when one accepts an award or the like is to shake hands. The principal, quite obviously a great leader and teacher herself, very graciously counselled the children and said, 'Now, stop, look Julia in the eye, shake her hand, say thank you, and then you can accept your badge.'
Recently, we have heard that a school in Sydney adopted an agreed protocol for its annual awards day permitting Muslim males to decline to shake hands with female presenters. Australia is the most successful multicultural nation on this earth, with a non-discriminatory migration policy based on the value of respect. This respect must be mutual. Regardless of the rationale for this so-called agreed protocol in this school, it does not respect our Australian values and customs with regard to gender equality. Migrants to this country, like all, must not only comply with the Australian rule of law but also respect our Australian values and customs. Discriminatory practices such as this should not be condoned by any school, educational body or community in Australia.
Western Australian State Election
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (13:52): Well, well, well! Another day goes by—another tale of woe insofar as Colin Barnett and the state Liberal government go, as we march towards the election on 11 March, just around the corner. And today it is health. As if yesterday was not bad enough, where it was infrastructure, what do I see today: a united, unified, eloquent Western Australian Labor team—and not a single member on the other side from Western Australia prepared to go into bat for Colin Barnett and his Liberals.
In relation to health, it cannot get any worse than the Perth Children's Hospital. It would be funny if it were not so tragic and the health of kids were not at stake. In February 2010, the new Children's Hospital was announced, with a spend of $1.2 billion, projected to be done by late 2015. If only it were so! Not only did we see, in July 2016, asbestos contamination riddling the site, with over 500 workers having to sign an asbestos register as at risk from having been exposed to asbestos, but also—it gets worse—in 2016 it was discovered that there was lead in the Perth Children's Hospital's water supply. It is still not remedied. In January 2017, an FOI from the shadow minister for health revealed 3,000 defects still unremedied at the Perth Children's Hospital.
It is another tale of woe, another day where it cannot get any worse for Colin Barnett, and another day closer to the time when the community should and must act to turf that government out, to make sure we elect a Mark McGowan state Labor government. (Time expired)
Telecommunications
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:53): The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is currently doing an inquiry into domestic mobile phone roaming. I have farmers in my patch who are carrying two phones: an Optus phone and a mobile phone, and they take one phone at one end of the farm and another phone at the other end of the farm.
Can I say that the rhetoric I hear from Telstra is that the competitive advantage they have by having a large footprint affords them the profitability so that they can build mobile phone towers in the region. This is contrary to my experience as a member who represents a third of the state of Victoria; I note that Telstra has not built a mobile phone tower in the electorate of Mallee, except for the ones that were subsidised by the government under the mobile phone black spot program.
I believe that the ACCC should—and I will not pre-empt their ruling—regulate national roaming. It stands to reason that a greater utilisation of a mobile phone tower should increase the profitability of the tower, thus ensuring the viability of expanding the network.
We must address disadvantage as to telecommunications for regional Australia, and this is part of ripping off the band-aid. And it just makes sense. Across the electorate of Mallee—a third of the state of Victoria—we have 105 Optus towers and 108 mobile phone towers from Telstra, and we still have black spots. Wouldn't it make sense if we could build for the future and make them work together, rather than duplicating the system right across the country?
Workplace Relations
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:55): The recent decision by the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates in retail, fast food, hospitality and pharmacy awards will have a devastating impact on low-paid workers. On behalf of regional Australia, I condemn the coalition government for not standing up for low-paid workers.
Nearly 700,000 low-paid workers, including some of the people here in the galleries today, will have their penalty rates cut, losing up to $77 per week. But why this is particularly disgraceful is: what we have got here is a movement of money away from the regions and into the big cities where the concentration of wealth is, with the owners of and the shareholders in these large retail chains. Where do they live? Perhaps in places like Toorak or perhaps in places like Wentworth.
It is another case, I think, where big business gets a $50 billion tax cut, and now we are taking penalty rates off the lowest-paid people in our country. There are kids who want to get themselves through university, and we are taking money off them—$77 a week—to put in the pockets of the big corporate owners. Do you notice a trend here? That is a trend we are seeing in our country. It is no good. We should be backing low-paid workers, not taking money off them. (Time expired)
Aged Care: Carinya Aged Care Korumburra
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:56): I speak about our aged care heroes: Carinya Aged Care Korumburra—Max Hall, President; Rob Francis, Finance/Treasurer; Cindy Nicholas, CEO; Nina Kraskov, Noel Hopkins, Ian Wilson, Rod Abbott, Jenny Blackmore, Jess Cruikshank, Lyn Perks and Jim Watson. These are good people who manage the care, comfort and wellbeing of and give loving attention to our older citizens in their local community—people who contributed to our national wealth and the security of this generation. What a debt we owe to our forebears. How can we best care for them and repay that? Through our not-for-profit aged care facilities across Australia, in the regions of this great south land.
To you who volunteer your time and expertise to manage these facilities: you are our aged-care heroes. To every aged-care provider and support staffer across Australia: thank you; you are our heroes.
I see in the gallery today some representatives from Scotch College. I welcome you. There are two former Wesley collegians here who played against your fathers; there is one over there. The member for Bowman's father went to your school, and I believe that he still has your blazer in his cupboard and it fits him. So it is still lovely to have you here and it is great to be part of this great Parliament House.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (13:58): Messing around with the Racial Discrimination Act is an ideological obsession for the Liberal Party. But the more they talk about it, the more it makes you wonder: what exactly do they want to be able to say? What humiliating vitriol do they think that the government of Australia should be encouraging?
We live in a marvellous multicultural nation, enlarged and enriched by generations of migrants from all around the world. We do not just tolerate diversity in Australia; we embrace it. That is not something we should sacrifice for an ideological agenda.
Weakening safeguards against hate speech will not create one single job. Giving a green light to racism will not solve the traffic jams in the great suburbs of Australia. Softening the Racial Discrimination Act will not help pensioners pay for their bills or put money back in the pockets of workers whose wages this government is standing by and allowing to be cut.
The debate over section 18C is a metaphor for the current government: totally divided; two camps at war with each other; no-one with the leadership or authority to make a decision and carry the day. The approach to 18C changes is classic Turnbull government: divided down the middle; two camps; and no-one in charge.
Well, the bipartisan committee has recommended no change to the law. The ball is now in the Prime Minister's court. He should rule out the right to be a bigot once and for all.
Visiting Delegation
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:59): I have two very special guests in the gallery today, amongst many: Marillyn Hewson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin; and Retired Commodore Vincenzo Di Pietro. They are here as part of a delegation to our parliament. Both are outstanding and phenomenal people. Thank you so much for all the work you do.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Workplace Relations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time, the Prime Minister said that he supports the decision to cut penalty rates. Today's national accounts confirm that corporate profits had their biggest increase in 40 years and that wages and salaries had their largest fall in over 20 years. Why is it that, under the Turnbull government, when companies receive record profits, they get tax cuts and, when wages flat line, workers get pay cuts?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): The only person I am aware of in this room—or there may be some others on the Labor side—who has actively cut penalty rates is the Leader of the Opposition, and he has done it again and again and again. He has been a champion. There are so many examples. I have a pile of enterprise agreements here that he has signed. But let's talk about cutting penalty rates. Let's talk about what he did to the workers at Clean Event.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Parramatta!
Mr TURNBULL: Clean Event entered into an enterprise bargaining agreement in 2006 with the AWU. I have the agreement here. It was signed by the Leader of the Opposition's delegate. He has turned away. He always does that. He cannot take it. He cannot tell the truth. He cannot be consistent. He flip-flops and backs away. He is in favour of the independent umpire one day, proclaiming the importance of respect for the Fair Work Commission, and then he runs away from it.
What about the workers? What about the casual cleaning workers at Clean Event, who were paid, thanks to the Leader of the Opposition, $18.14 an hour when they were entitled to $50.17 under the award? That is what he did.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: And where did the money go? Was there a payment to the AWU? Were membership lists provided to the AWU. Follow the money; follow the politics. I see his members are all looking down. They cannot stand it either. They know that they are led by the world champion in cutting penalty rates. As the royal commission was told, the benefits to Clean Event and the Australian Workers Union were obvious. The persons who missed out were the workers. And that was just one case. We heard yesterday about Cirque du Soleil—another great triumph by Bill Shorten, in his capacity as a union leader.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume is seat. Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Parramatta is warned, I caution the member for Griffith, yet again, and the Minister for Environment and Energy, and I remind the Prime Minister to refer to members by their correct titles. Now I call the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: Thanks, Mr Speaker—on direct relevance. I appreciate your ruling that you allow time to compare and contrast. We are now well into the answer and there should be some reference to the 700,000 people getting a pay cut.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I am going to rule on the point of order, so that there is absolute clarity for all members. The question, of which I have a summary, had a number of aspects to it—one of which was penalty rates. As I have made clear over and over again, the Prime Minister needs to stay on that topic, and he is. He is on the topic of penalty rates. He is completely in order.
Mr TURNBULL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the subject of penalty rates, we have seen again and again the Leader of the Opposition in his days as a union leader signing away workers' penalty rates in return for payments to the union, union lists and some new arrangement—again and again—whether it is the workers at Melbourne Olympic Park, the workers at Chiquita Mushrooms or the workers at Clean Event. We have a long list of workers who earn less on Sundays and Saturdays because of the Leader of the Opposition. He is a master at cutting penalty rates. He is an adept expert at cutting penalty rates. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on today's national accounts and the importance of a strong economy for households and businesses? Are there any risks to Australia's economy, including in my electorate of Bonner?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:05): I thank the honourable member for his question. In his electorate and in all honourable members' electorates we are seeing the benefit of strong economic growth in the December quarter—1.1 per cent and 2.4 per cent across the year. That now gives Australia faster economic growth than any of the G7 economies. This is a very good outcome for Australian families, for Australian business and for jobs. It underscores the strength and resilience of our economy.
We have also seen—and this is a very, very positive development—strong growth across sectors. There has been strong growth in agriculture, driven by a good harvest, yes, but also big export trade deals—the very export opportunities that are delivering growth in regional Australia and picking up from the downturn caused by the inevitable completion of the mining and construction boom. We are also seeing positive economic growth in Western Australia—of course the biggest mining state and the state which has faced the biggest transition. It is a tribute to the leadership of my government and the leadership of the Barnett government that you are seeing that strength in growth.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: Honourable members opposite can scoff, but what they forget is that, if you are looking for a job in Western Australia, you know you have a better chance now than you did a year ago and you know you are doing better because you have got stronger economic growth.
None of this has happened by luck; it is the result of carefully considered policies, prudent economic management and strong leadership. Every single one of our policies, every single one, from the middle-income tax cuts, to our instant asset write-off for small business, to our commitment to infrastructure, to our focus on innovation, to our commitment to opening up more export opportunities—all of our policies and measures are focused on delivering stronger economic growth, and we are seeing that stronger economic growth across the country.
The business tax cuts the Labor Party used to be in favour of and published extensively on and orated on, in the case of the Leader of the Opposition. He said how cutting business taxes would deliver greater productivity, more investment, more growth and more jobs. All of those things were in the 2010 budget, when they said it would put money in the pockets of workers if you cut company tax. They were right then and it is right today. All of those things they have now walked away from, just like the Leader of the Opposition has walked away from his commitment to the independent umpire in industrial relations. The Labor Party's recipe is one for higher debt, higher deficit, lower growth and fewer opportunities for Australian families. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for McMahon, I caution the member for Brand and the member for Perth.
Workplace Relations
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:08): My question is to the Treasurer. This morning at Senate estimates, the Secretary of the Treasury was asked whether the decision to cut penalty rates would create more jobs. The secretary said, and I quote: 'I don't have an opinion on that.' Can the Treasurer confirm that his own department has not advised the government that this will create jobs and, in fact, this is just a straight pay cut for 700,000 Australians?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:09): I thank the member for his question. I refer him to page 142 of the Fair Work Commission judgement. Paragraph 688 says:
On the basis of the evidence before us, we have concluded that reducing penalty rates may have a modest positive effect on employment.
The only organisation that has been looking at the issue of penalty rates has been the Fair Work Commission. The reason they were looking at penalty rates in the Fair Work Commission is that the Leader of the Opposition asked them to. He actually asked them to go and look at penalty rates. So satisfied was the Leader of the Opposition with his own work in cutting penalty rates for workers when he was a union representative that he asked the Fair Work Commission to have a look at this as well; and, when the Fair Work Commission had a good look at this, that is what they concluded. The Fair Work Commission has made the judgement on this matter, not the government. The Fair Work Commission has done it on the basis of the instructions provided by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government. So it is not for the Treasury to be asked or to be providing advice on this matter. The Fair Work Commission, at the direct instructions of the Leader of the Opposition, has come up with the result which has resulted in penalty rates being cut, just as they were under the agreements he himself signed.
Economy
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (14:10): My question is also to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on Australia's national accounts for the December quarter? What do today's national accounts mean for the Australian economy and the hardworking Australian businesses and families in La Trobe and elsewhere?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:10): I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. He understands that the jobs and the wages and the hours and the services that hardworking Australians rely on depend on a growing economy. The good news is that today's national accounts for the December quarter showed that our economy grew by 1.1 per cent, bouncing back in the December quarter, with real growth of 2.4 per cent through the year and nominal growth of more than six per cent, which is the best result in more than six years. Once again, Australia is growing faster than all the major developed economies in the world. Of all the G7 economies, where are on top of that pack. There was growth in every single state and territory, which is the first time we have seen that for a while, including in the great state of Western Australia under the leadership of the Barnett government.
In addition to that, we have seen householders show great confidence in our economy, because household consumption also bounced back, up 0.9 per cent in the quarter. Dwelling investment rebounded in the quarter by 1.2 per cent and, after 12 consecutive quarters of negative results in new business investment, it increased by almost two per cent. That is a welcome result, but we cannot expect those results to continue if those opposite are going to continue to frustrate our plans to support investment by businesses in their growth, which delivers the wages and which delivers the hours that Australians desperately need—which the national accounts today also revealed. Real net national disposable income per capita, as the shadow Treasurer often reminds this House, means living standards. Living standards increased by 5.3 per cent in 2016, the strongest annual growth in that measure in five years.
All of this growth has been supported by the hard work of Australians, but it has also been supported by the proactive policies to drive growth in investment, to provide confidence in the economy and to ensure that people are out there spending and investing in their own futures. That has included our important expenditures in infrastructure, in communications, in technology and in defence industry. All of these things are supporting the growth agenda of the Turnbull government, because the Turnbull government understands that, unless you drive growth and unless you drive investment, then you cannot expect those outcomes for the wages and the hours upon which wages depend. That is what this government is focused on. These results today are an endorsement of a pro-growth Turnbull government national economic plan. These results speak to the success of that plan and why it should be supported rather than opposed by those opposite.
Workplace Relations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that he supports the decision to cut penalty rates. So will the Prime Minister please advise the 700,000 Australians who rely upon these penalty rates whether he will intervene to stop these pay cuts? Yes or no—will the Commonwealth intervene to stop these pay cuts?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting, as will the member for Jagajaga.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:14): As the honourable member said not so long ago: 'Under the fair go workplace system Labor put in place, penalty rates in modern awards are set by the independent umpire, Fair Work Australia, after extensive consultations with employer representatives and the unions. The tribunal is currently holding a major check-up of the operation of penalty rates and public holidays in modern award rates. Employers, employees and their representatives are able to appear before the umpire and put their views forward. That's a fair system, one that balances the rights of employers to make a profit with the rights of employees to fair treatment.'
That is what the Leader of the Opposition said a few years back when he was a minister. He said it again and again. He said it right up until January this year. He repeatedly said that he supported the independent umpire, and in fact he challenged the coalition. In April last year, Neil Mitchell asked him: 'You'll accept them?' and 'Even if they reduce Sunday penalty rates?' 'Well, I said I'd accept the independent tribunal,' said the Leader of the Opposition, 'and that makes a big difference between us and … the Liberals.' We always said would accept the independent tribunal, and we still do. Of course we do.
The reality is this. When he was a union leader he made detailed decisions about penalty rates. I can give you a very good example. Agreements with the Melbourne & Olympic Parks Trust were signed in 2001 and 2003 by the Leader of the Opposition. Penalty rates were excluded completely—absolutely completely—other than time and a quarter for work performed between 1 am and 6 am. That was the extent of it. Having denied those workers any additional compensation on weekends and on public holidays—limited to an extra 25 per cent for working between 1 am and 6 am—and having then supported the independent umpire, now he wants to attribute to others the decision, for example, to reduce the public holiday rate for casuals under the hospitality award from 275 per cent to 250 per cent. He reduced it. He was prepared to give workers for whom he was responsible absolutely nothing except an extra quarter between midnight and dawn. That is the extent of his sincerity on this issue. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:17): Before I call the member for Kennedy, I would like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the honourable Fran Bailey, the former member for McEwen and a former minister. On behalf of the House, I welcome you back.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
National Security
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:17): My question is to the minister for migration. The Daily Telegraph in October 2014 reported that Young in New South Wales is the unofficial Muslim capital of the outback. With a population of 7,000, Arabic is the second language, and it is home to 400 Middle Easterners. Yesterday, Haisem Zahab from Young was arrested on allegations of assisting ISIS to develop long-range missiles. Last week, the Federation of Islamic Councils' president reportedly stated domestic violence is 'the last resort'. Will the minister listen to his own backbench and the United States and ban visa holders from North Africa and the countries between Greece and India, exempting, of course, persecuted minorities, namely Sikhs, Jews and Christians—persecuted or not! (Time expired)
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:18): I thank the member for his question. There are a few parts to his question. The first is in relation to the arrest of a man in Young. I have no comment to make in relation to that, because, obviously, it is a matter being investigated by the New South Wales Police and the Australian Federal Police. I want to pay tribute, though, to the Minister for Justice and the investigators from the Australian Federal Police, as well as ASIO and other agencies, who were involved in that investigation to keep us safe. They are allegations before the court, and I do not have anything further to say in relation to that.
The member asked about the population of Muslims in Young. It is important to point out that the vast majority of people are working hard in the community and supporting, for example, the abattoir that can only stay open because of the local Muslim population. It provides support to local farmers and to the local economy. They are hardworking people. They are doing the right thing. Like 99 per cent of people from the Islamic community in this country, they are doing the right thing. Where we find the one per cent and where the one per cent are doing the wrong thing—people who seek to do harm to our country—we will come down on them hard. We have done that in the past, and we will continue to do that in the future. We are working with intelligence agencies and governments around the world to make sure that we can identify threats here and overseas. We will stamp out ISIL. We will stamp out those people who seek to do us harm. We are not going to change our migration program, because we have one of the best border protection systems in the world. That has been acknowledged by many countries. We have been able to deal with threats as they present at our border. We have stopped boats, and we have been able to stop threats at our border. We will not step back from the tough decisions that we have had to make, because they are in our national interest; that point needs to be recognised as well.
The honourable member's final point was a reference to comments made by the Islamic councils' president last week. I refer him to comments that I made on the Ray Hadley program on 2GB. I said:
Well, this is Australia and if you come to our country you abide by our laws and one of the things that sets us apart from many other nations is our respect of women.
We all want our daughters to succeed, to be in loving relationships, get a good education, get a good job and be the equal of any man in this country and it is unacceptable and I'm sure it is unacceptable frankly for the vast majority of the Islamic community as well.
Defence Industry
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how the national accounts reflect the role defence industry plays in creating jobs for hardworking Australians and creating a stronger economy? How is this vital part of our economy undermined by the risks associated with an unreliable and unaffordable energy supply?
Mr PYNE ( Sturt — Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry ) ( 14:21 ): I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question. What the national accounts show today is a real exclamation mark along the journey for the defence industry in Australia and for the success of the Turnbull government's policy about using the defence industry to help drive the economy, jobs and investment. What the national accounts show today is that Commonwealth defence spending grew by 34.2 per cent over the quarter and 15.2 per cent higher over the year before. So the defence industry is doing exactly what the Turnbull government had hoped it would do. It is working in the economy to drive jobs, investment and growth.
Over the last few months, a number of significant businesses in Australia have announced huge expansions of their workforce. Lockheed Martin will double their workforce in South Australia because of the combat system integration on the submarines. Those are submarines that Labor never committed to when they were in government. They never ordered them. They never showed any indication they would never do it. We did it. We made the decision that meant the combat system integration could be awarded. It was won by Lockheed Martin, doubling their workforce.
Northrop Grumman have announced a doubling of their workforce across Australia from 500 to 1,000 employees. New offices are opening in Canberra and around Australia—Huntington Ingalls Industries and Fincantieri Australia here in Canberra and DCNS in Adelaide. The training, skills development and investment that is going on in the economy in the defence industry is driving high-tech, advanced manufacturing and high-value jobs so that we can compete in manufacturing. It is growing real jobs in our economy. We cannot always compete with some of the countries around us in some of the areas where they need low labour costs, but we can certainly compete where it involves high skills, advanced manufacturing, high technology and innovation.
The Turnbull government decided to invest in that when we said we would put $195 billion into growing our defence capability over the next 10 years. The national accounts as released by the Treasurer today are showing that that policy is working. It is also flowing into exports. We are seeing companies such as EOS working in the Middle East to sell their remote warfare system. The Nulka anti-ship-missile decoy is being sold all around the world as a billion-dollar export product. Austal ships are selling and working to get into the Middle East. Thales Australia with their rifle, the Bushmaster and Hawkei are winning new markets overseas. They are growing jobs in places like Melbourne, Brisbane, Lithgow, Adelaide, Perth— (Time expired)
Turnbull Government
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:25): My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning on Adelaide radio the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources said:
… the overall decision of this commission, which I have got to say I support being a small business operator.
Prime Minister, have any ministers disclosed potential conflicts of interest in relation to the government's response to this decision as required by the statement of ministerial standards? How many members of the government will profit from the decision to cut the pay of 700,000 Australians?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting!
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:25): I am not sure whether the honourable member has caught it up but it was not so long ago that in the disclosure of his superannuation fund he did not bother to actually identify what the fund was. So in terms of complying with disclosure he may want to check that. The reality is that we here on our side of the House stand for enterprise, investment and jobs. We know that small business is the engine room of the economy. That is what we stand for, because we know it is delivering the growth that will deliver jobs.
The honourable member has asked about penalty rates. It is important to bear in mind another example of the Leader of the Opposition trading away penalty rates—in this case, entirely—in an agreement between the AWU and Adecco projects.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for the Environment and Energy and the Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House is testing my patience.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the earlier ruling with respect to when penalty rates are referred to. This question goes to a very specific issue as to whether there is a conflict and whether members of the government are profiting from the response.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right will cease interjecting. I can only say that the first line of the question referred to penalty rates.
Mr TURNBULL: The group that profited from trading away penalty rates was of course the Australian Workers' Union. They got payments from Cleanevent and other companies again and again. They also profited from getting membership lists.
In the Cirque du Soleil agreement paragraph 4 states the intentions of the parties. This is what they are: 'integrity and dedication'—long known as the hallmark of that union!—'teamwork and effective communication, a productive attitude towards industrial relations and the development of cross-training of the workforce.' Then when you get to paragraph 8 on rates of pay it says: 'The rates contained have been calculated as an all-purpose rate to be used for all hours worked. As such, no additional penalty rates shall be applicable.' There it is. There is no doubt who is responsible. It was signed by the then national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, the Leader of the Opposition. There it is in his own hand. He traded away penalty rates entirely. He gave them away. He put in his preamble that he was dedicated to integrity and dedication. He certainly was not dedicated to maintaining penalty rates then. When he had the opportunity to protect them, he traded them away. When he had the opposition to state what his position was in respect of the Fair Work Commission, he committed to support its decision, to accept its independence and to stand for the independence of the umpire. Now he has walked away from that. He cannot keep one position for any period of time longer than—(Time expired)
Cotton Industry
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (14:29): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the significant contribution Australia's cotton industry makes to the Australian economy? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any threats to this industry and the thousands of hardworking Australians it employs, including those on 141 cotton farms in my electorate of Maranoa?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:30): I thank the honourable member for his question and—
Mr Hill interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).
Mr JOYCE: note the work that he has done in the agricultural sector and the work he has done in the cotton industry, especially in his time in banking in South-East Queensland. South-East Queensland is responsible for about a third of the nation's cotton crop. It is a massive employer in that area. One of the big threats, of course, is—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Bruce has been asked to leave. He will leave immediately, or I will name him. You have been ejected a number of times now. You should know how to pack up quicker.
Mr JOYCE: It is a great day for agriculture when we see the December figures come out and quite clearly show the capabilities and competence of this side of the House—of this government. When we look at agriculture, forestry and fishing, just listen to these numbers. For the trend for September 2016 to December 2016: a 7.4 per cent trend for the percentage change. For December 2015 to December 2016: 20.4 per cent. Seasonally adjusted, the percentage change, September 2016 to December 2016: 8.3 per cent growth.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney!
Mr JOYCE: Seasonally adjusted percentage change, December 2015 to December 2016—wait for it: 23.7 per cent growth. Those sorts of numbers are changing the whole dynamics of regional Australia—those sorts of numbers in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector. It means that one of the major banks comes into our office—in the last fortnight—and says that they have had the biggest payoff in rural debt in their history. This is what is happening under a competent government.
This is backed in by issues such as the dog fences. You might say, 'Why is that important?' Call people such as those who live at Bollon or Cunnamulla as we roll out thousands of kilometres of fences. Supported by this government, one of the biggest turnarounds in this quarter has been wool and sheep meat. We have seen the price of wool go to record prices for about the last 30 years. This is a change around.
We hear the deriding comments by the Labor Party that our agricultural policy is a thought bubble. Well, it is a thought bubble with record outcomes and record returns for this nation. It is the essence of what a competent government does. It brings a better return back through the farm gate. That is precisely what we are doing. That is precisely what is happening. That is why we talk about record cattle prices, record sheap meat prices, a record back in wool prices. Everything is turning around. That is why we can go to the seat of Parkes and see, with the tax deductibility that we brought in on grain sheds, new grain sheds going up, new fences going up and new water infrastructure going in—a 100 per cent write-off on water infrastructure; a 100 per cent write-off on fencing; a write-off over three years for grains; the instant asset write-off. This is the sort of turnaround. This is how competency looks. Competency looks like this. This is what competency looks like. And what did you ever provide for agriculture? What can you put your hand to? You were a total and utter failure. We have a record result.
Workplace Relations
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:33): My question is to the Prime Minister. Have any ministers disclosed potential conflicts of interest in relation to the government's response to the recent Fair Work Commission decision, as required by the Statement of ministerial standards? How many members of the government will profit from—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Members on my right continue to interject through the question. Obviously, members wish me to hear the question. I could not hear all of the question. I am going to ask the Manager of Opposition Business to repeat it and for there to be no interjections. The Manager of Opposition Business can start from the beginning.
Mr BURKE: My question is to the Prime Minister. Have any ministers disclosed potential conflicts of interest in relation to the government's response to the recent Fair Work Commission decision, as required by the Statement of ministerial standards? How many members of the government will profit from the decision?
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right!
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:34): I know the honourable member and his friends opposite want to represent this decision by the independent umpire, whose independence the Labor Party has always, before very recently, championed and defended—I know they want to present this as a decision of the government; it is not. It is a decision of the Fair Work Commission. It is a decision of the independent umpire. It is a decision of the Fair Work Commission. They know that. Australian know that.
What they do know, also, is that when the Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to make decisions about penalty rates himself he was all too ready to trade them away. We have another good example here between a company called Cut & Fill Pty Ltd—it would be quite an apt name for the Leader of the Opposition; 'Cut & Fill'—and the Australian Workers' Union. In this agreement, signed by the Leader of the Opposition some years ago back in 2003, he—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House is warmed. The Treasurer will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, the question was deliberately framed to ensure that the rules of relevance that you have enforced earlier in question time would be kept to. I call the standing order of direct relevance. The Prime Minister has strayed.
The SPEAKER: I say to the Manager of Opposition Business: having listened carefully to the question on my second attempt, and in listening to the answer, I understand the point he is seeking to make, but I am still judging that the Prime Minister is in order. He is talking about the Fair Work decision and the policy matter related to it. While there have been many occasions where members have asked very specific questions, where I have asked ministers to make their answer relevant to the question, the question is when they move into a different policy area. There have been many questions that have been asked that have been quite specific in demanding 'yes' or 'no' answers. Whilst you are entitled to ask those questions, there is no requirement at all for those answering the questions to give 'yes' or 'no' answers. At this point, having listened to the question carefully, I am judging that the Prime Minister is on the policy topic and is still in order.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I agree with your ruling, but if the Manager of Opposition Business is going to be pedantic about it the Prime Minister should be able to answer questions that are within his power and responsibilities. As he had nothing to do with the Fair Work Commission's decision, this question could easily have been ruled out of order.
The SPEAKER: I am going to let the Manager of Opposition Business respond to that.
Mr Burke: To respond to the point of order, the Prime Minister is responsible for whether ministers disclose a conflict of interest. He is specifically responsible for that under his own statement of standards.
The SPEAKER: With respect to that last point by the Leader of the House, I agree with the Manager of Opposition Business. The question had a couple of elements. What is keeping the Prime Minister relevant is the reference to the fair work decision. There was another element to the question, for which the Prime Minister is responsible. The Prime Minister is relevant.
Mr TURNBULL: Returning to one of the Leader of the Opposition's practical demonstrations of how to cut penalty rates—he is an expert at this—indeed, he did not cut them; he totally eliminated them in this case. It was 100 per cent. It was very thorough. It was in 2003, signed for and on behalf of the Australian Workers Union. There is his signature—the signature of the Leader of the Opposition as he now is. In this agreement it sets out the objectives. The hypocrisy is just so typical of the Leader of the Opposition. One of the objectives is to transfer to the new skill level structure, which provides a defined career path for civil construction employees and recognises them for the skills they have obtained and used. The recognition did not extend to penalty rates—oh no! That was all traded away, to the degree that these are the only wages allowable during the period of the agreement, and any other increases to wages or allowances arising, whether by decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or otherwise—so being represented by the Leader of the Opposition meant you would not even get a benefit from a decision of the AIRC. It goes on to say that 'any other increases arising shall not apply to the wage rates of employees employed under this agreement'. Again, it is a comprehensive sweep—the Leader of the Opposition demonstrating his commitment to cutting penalty rates, in this case cutting them entirely.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is warned.
Cybersecurity
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:40): My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security. Will the Minister inform the House about the current arrangements on the provision of power in our cybersecurity defences? Is he aware of any occasions where the defences have been asked to be put on generated power?
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) (14:40): I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question and his concern. He knows that energy security is vital to national security. His electorate is central to our defence forces' capability, with patrol boats from HMAS Cairns actively engaged in protecting our northern borders. As a key part of our defence capability, cybersecurity also keeps us safe on a daily basis.
The Turnbull government is the first government to put real money into cybersecurity as part of our lives. However, on 10 February this was potentially put in jeopardy, when the Department of Defence was instructed by ActewAGL and the New South Wales environment department to assist with load shedding. As the House is aware, a key part of our cyber capabilities is provided through the ASD. The Australian Signals Directorate was placed onto diesel generators as a precaution. It had concerns with the reliability of the grid. This meant that our agency responsible for critical infrastructure was on backup power to pre-empt a cut. Having the Department of Defence being put onto generators is a rare and significant event. Defence was not the only key part of our infrastructure that was asked to move onto generators. On 10 February Canberra Airport was also requested by ActewAGL to move onto generators.
A lack of energy security is a direct threat to our national security. Energy security is equally critical to our cybersecurity capabilities and to the security of Australians. We must deal with this issue. We have to have a plan to deal with this challenge. As the Minister for Environment and Energy has said, Labor has no plan. You cannot have an aspiration, target, an aim or a goal when it comes to national security.
Mr Dick interjecting—
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
Mr Hammond interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Oxley is warned. The member for Brand has already been warned. She can leave under 94(a). The member for Perth is on his last chance.
The member for Brand then left the chamber.
Mr TEHAN: This government will not sit down and allow the Leader of the Opposition to have the security agencies that keep us safe sitting in the dark.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned.
Workplace Relations
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (14:44): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's recent visit to the electorate of Gilmore and the member for Gilmore's statement yesterday that it is a gift for our young people that their penalty rates have been cut. On that visit did the Prime Minister and the member tell the people of Gilmore that it was government policy to cut their penalty rates? Why do the Prime Minister and the member for Gilmore support cutting penalty rates of Australians?
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, the member for Whitlam has tried manfully to make this the Prime Minister's responsibility, but because he visits an electorate—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will remove her prop or she will remove herself from the House.
Mr Pyne: does not mean he is responsible for the statements of the member. It is not within his responsibility; therefore, the question should be ruled out of order.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I am just going to say to members: we are more than halfway through question time, but a number of members have been ejected already. I can tell you that in this parliament there have been a number of repeat offenders. In fact of the total ejections, almost half are by seven people. I am giving fair warning now.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I do not need to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: and I do not need to hear from the member for Lindsay, who is once again warned. She cannot help herself. The Leader of the House makes an entirely valid point about the first part of the question, but the latter part of the question specifically asked whether the Prime Minister told constituents something and that part of the question is in order.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:46): The policy of the government, as has been stated for a long time, is to support the independent umpire, which had indeed been the policy of the Leader of the Opposition until, we are assured, January this year when, after consultations with his paymaster, the CFMEU—none of whose members are affected by the decision I might add—he decided to change his tune. Our policy, our position has been to respect the independent umpire. The decision, the complex decision, as to what the right penalty rates should be for, for example, casuals in the fast food industry award 2010 is a matter that the Fair Work Commission, as the Leader of the Opposition has often said, is uniquely qualified to determine, as the independent umpire, after hearing submissions from employers and from the representatives of employees and forming a judgement as to how changes in penalty rates affect the opportunity for more employment.
The judgement of the Fair Work Commission, and it is its judgement and its judgement alone, is that these reductions—in this case a reduction for casuals from a 275 per cent penalty rate to 250 per cent—will assist in creating more job opportunities. That was the trade-off, the rationale, described by President Ross in his decision leading a panel of five—every member of whom was appointed by the Labor Party—on a reference given to them by the Leader of the Opposition, who, until very recently, again and again and again said that the independent umpire should be respected.
I remind honourable members of what the Leader of the Opposition said in May—not even a year ago—when he was addressing the issue of the Greens proposing to legislate to stop any changes being made to penalty rates. He said:
I … caution the Greens from their sideshow position that they need to be careful, they're playing with fire by proposing that a government should be able to legislate on specific penalty rate outcomes. They are loading the gun for a future conservative government to pull the trigger because what the Government has the power to put in, a future government has the power dismantle.
Then he concludes:
The independent umpire, the system of conciliation and arbitration has served this nation well for 120 years.
Well apparently no longer. He has now abandoned it. Nothing is sacred. He will throw anything overboard in his desperation to score a political point.
National Security
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (14:49): Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on recent steps to ensure the security of Australia against the threat of terrorism, both here and abroad?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:49): I thank the member for Fairfax for his question on a very serious and complex threat to our national security. The Australian government is committed to taking every action to secure Australia against the terrorist threat here and abroad. The arrest yesterday of an alleged terrorist suspect, who is said to have been assisting in the development of advanced missile technology for use by ISIS, demonstrates the insidious nature of this threat.
There are a number of deep concerns that we hold, for Australia is not immune. There have been, since September 2014, four attacks here in Australia and our security intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted 12 major planning operations. There are about 200 Australians who are currently under active investigation for supporting or seeking to support individuals and organisations involved in terrorism, either by funding through financial means or seeking to travel to Iraq and Syria to support them. In accordance with our security agencies' advice, I have continued to cancel passports of those Australian citizens who are either in Syria and Iraq or those who are seeking to travel there to train as a terrorist and support terrorist organisations. As from September 2014, I have cancelled 165 passports on national security grounds and I have suspended 36 others. We believe there are about 100 Australians who are currently fighting in Syria and Iraq supporting the terrorist organisations and other terrorists. We will take every step we can to prevent them coming home or seeking to leave, and that is why we will continue to cancel or suspend passports.
Today I announced a new approach to the Australian aid program in accordance with changes to the guidelines on a global basis of development assistance. Where appropriate, Australia will be able to use our aid budget for non-coercive countering of violent extremism initiatives. This will assist us to coordinate with our partners in the region to prevent the threat of terrorism taking hold in our region, and we will take every step possible to secure Australia against the threat of terrorism here and also in our region.
Workplace Relations
Ms LAMB (Longman) (14:53): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday during question time, the Prime Minister finally confirmed he supports the decision to cut penalty rates. The Prime Minister's support for cutting penalty rates will mean that workers at the Caneland Central shopping centre in Mackay in the electorate of Dawson will have their pay cut. Is the reason the Prime Minister is refusing to stop the penalty rates decision because he and his Liberal-National government, including the member for Dawson, support cuts to penalty rates?
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment has already been cautioned.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:53): I thank the honourable member for her question. I see some of my colleagues, while noticing her attention to the member for Dawson, suggesting that perhaps she should shop locally and that may be of more benefit to small business and workers in her electorate. The honourable member is doing a very poor job of trying to verbal the government on the matter of penalty rates. Our position is very clear: we support the decisions of the independent umpire because they are taken by the independent umpire. The government has not decided to change one penalty rate or another.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows the rules on props.
Mr TURNBULL: The honourable member forgets that a fundamental principle of her party, in government and in opposition, until very recently has always been to support the independent umpire and to support it coming to a decision, going through a process, hearing from employers and employees and coming to a ruling. As to what the right change is with respect to each of those awards, the government has not gone through that process neither has the opposition. The only people who have done that hard work, that elaborate laborious effort is the Fair Work Commission, every member of whom was appointed by the honourable member's party.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows the rules on props. If you want me to be strict, I will refer to the Practice.
Mr TURNBULL: So the question here is: do you want to have penalty rates being decided by an expert independent umpire who hears the submissions of employers and employees as—the Leader of the Opposition has often said—is the appropriate process? Do you want to have them determined in that way or do you want to have them determined by parliament?
What the opposition is now saying is parliament should determine them. What that would mean, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, is that future governments will be able to make their own decisions about minimum wages, about penalty rates, about awards. That flies in the face of every principle of the industrial relations system the Labor Party has argued for, for 120 years, as the Leader of the Opposition has said. This is abandoning every principle of the Labor Party. And as Jennie George said, in words that honourable members should reflect on very carefully, 'be careful what you wish for'.
The independent umpire has served workers were well. It has served employers well. It has served Australia well. Decisions have been controversial, to be sure. But backing the independent umpire has been a joint commitment for many years, now abandoned as a politically cynical effort by the Labor Party and their hypocritical leader.
National Security
Mr GEE (Calare) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on the terrorism charges laid against an Australian citizen in New South Wales yesterday. And what action is the government taking to keep our country safe and secure?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (14:57): I thank the member for Calare for the question. As the foreign minister has reminded the House, yesterday the Australian Federal Police's counter-terrorism operations team charged a 42-year-old man in Young in relation to serious terrorism offences. The man was allegedly providing highly sophisticated military technical know-how to ISIL, specifically the capability for them to detect and to develop missile technology. This is another example of the excellent work that has been done by the Australian Federal Police and their partners in other security agencies.
This person was around one of the 200 that have been referred to in Australia who are being investigated for providing support to individuals or groups who are participants in the Syria-Iraq conflict. This includes through funding, through facilitation or through seeking to travel to the conflict zone to participate it in the conflict. Anyone fighting with or providing material support to ISIL is committing a serious offence under Australian law and will be subject to the full force of Australian law.
The bleak reality in Syria and Iraq is that ISIL is losing territory. They are losing their financial base, they are losing their fighters and they are losing the battles. However, we are aware that their weakness does present significant security challenges and that it may result in them attempting to carry out more terrorism attacks, including attacks here in Australia.
Since the terrorism alert level was raised in 2014 to 'probable', we have charge 61 people in relation to 26 counter-terrorism operations. Our top priority remains keeping the Australian people safe here and also when they travel abroad. To achieve this, we have invested an extra $1.3 billion in our police and intelligence community to strengthen their capabilities. We have also passed eight tranches of legislation through this parliament, which has completely updated the operating environment for our police and intelligence community.
These laws have given our agencies unprecedented power to act early to prevent terrorist attacks here in Australia. They have modernised the agencies' ability to collect intelligence. They have stopped extremists from leaving Australia to fight in the conflicts. We have introduced a 10-year jail term for anyone who enters a declared area in Syria or Iraq. We have reduced the threshold for police to make arrests for terrorism offences, which has been incredibly important in keeping us safe. We have enabled our agencies to cancel the Australian citizenship of dual nationals. We have made sure that internet service providers retain metadata for a period of two years, a vitally important part of any counterterrorism investigation. We will continue to work hand in glove with the Australian Federal Police and with the rest of our security apparatus to give them what they need to keep Australia safe.
Workplace Relations
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (15:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that he supports the decision to cut penalty rates, can the Prime Minister confirm that his colleague the Liberal member for Forde was reflecting government policy when he said in relation to the decision to cut penalty rates, 'The reductions are minor'? For this Prime Minister, is a $77 a week pay cut just a minor reduction?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:01): The decision to make cuts to penalty rates in a number of awards was a decision taken by the Fair Work Commission and nobody else, and honourable members opposite know that very well. It was taken by the Fair Work Commission, and that principle of backing the Fair Work Commission, backing the independent umpire, was a rare moment, you might say, of unity between the government and the opposition. Right through the election, we were accused of wanting to undermine the Fair Work Commission—utterly false—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay has been warned!
Mr TURNBULL: but we said we would support the independent umpire because they have done the work. For example, the public holiday rate under the Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2010 has been left at 250 per cent by the Fair Work Commission. Under the Pharmacy Industry Award, the rate on public holidays for full-time workers has been reduced from 250 to 225 per cent. Now, that is a decision by the Fair Work Commission. It is not a decision that the government has made. The government has not had the evidence before it, the submissions before it, to make the decision. This was a series of decisions properly delegated by the law, by a reference from the honourable member's leader, the Leader of the Opposition, to an expert body. That is what was done. That was their decision.
Equally, it was the decision of the Leader of the Opposition as a union leader, again and again, when he actually cut penalty rates, when he cut them away, when he made that decision. He made the decision directly and put workers' penalty rates to one side in return for other concessions, and as we know they included payments to the Australian Workers Union—payments to the Australian Workers Union which were not disclosed to the workers when they voted, or whether it was a clean event. And that was the subject of the royal commission.
Some of these employers saved millions and millions of dollars as a result of these deals that the Leader of the Opposition did. Now, he did them; he can defend them. He no doubt had a reason for doing it. His reasons were found wanting in the royal commission. But, just like he made that decision to cut penalty rates in respect to the workers he was representing, the Fair Work Commission made their decision. The government's decision is simply to support the independent umpire, which had been the Labor Party's view until January of this year, when they walked away from it. (Time expired)
Employment
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to ensure Australia's migration program does not disadvantage hardworking Australians? What are the benefits of having an approach that does not minimise job opportunities for Australians and their families?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:04): I thank the member very much for his question and for his interest in making sure that he can get the best possible deal for workers in his electorate. It is incredibly important, and it is what the Turnbull is about—to make sure that we can provide support to workers. And we put Australian workers first. Our government are determined to put young Australians into work to make sure that we can create jobs through the migration program and through employment programs to make sure that we secure their future and the future of our country.
We have a 457 visa program that operates in this country and we are cleaning it up because Labor made a mess of this migration program when they were in government. That would come as no surprise to Australians, because people know that during the glory years of Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, during which the Leader of the Opposition was the employment minister, the number of 457 visa primary visa holders went from 68,000 to 110,000 people. Now, this was at the time that the Leader of the Opposition, the then employment minister, was saying to Australians that he was putting workers first, when, as we now know and as has been demonstrated by the Prime Minister in question time today, that was not the case. It was not the case when the Leader of the Opposition was a minister in the Rudd-Gillard government and it was also not the case when he was a union leader, because not only did this Leader of the Opposition disadvantage workers when he was in the parliament as a minister but he presided over arrangements which saw workers in enterprise bargaining agreements lose part of their weekend penalty rates.
This is what makes the Leader of the Opposition's position so hypocritical at the moment. When Australians have this hesitation about the Leader of the Opposition, when they think that he is not straight up and down, that he is not what he says he is, they need to look not at his words but at his actions—at his actions as a union leader where he entered into agreements where workers missed out but the union got extra payments.
If you look at all these union bosses who are occupying the opposition benches across the chamber here, they had not one word to say about these EBAs that were entered into and that were sanctioned by the unions, which provided workers with a worse-off position than what the Fair Work Commission has provided for in recent days. They had nothing to say about that at all. So they are hypocrites from start to finish when it comes to any of these employment programs or any of these arrangements for workers.
We know that unions have entered into 457 agreements in record numbers. In fact, United Voice alone have sponsored 26 457 visas in the last five years. They are telling us how bad some of these programs are. Interestingly enough, 19 of these were for the position of workplace relations adviser. All you can surmise from that is that the former workplace relations advisers, the union bosses sitting here, have so bitterly disappointed the union bosses of today that they are trying to bring in some new talent. (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister accept that he has the power to stop the Fair Work Commission decision of last week?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:07): I assume that is the same Fair Work Commission decision that the Leader of the Opposition again and again said he would accept, a decision he would respect made by the independent umpire that he said he would support. Is that right? Is it the same one? The same one that was referred to on Neil Mitchell—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right.
Mr TURNBULL: Or has there been another decision? Again and again the Leader of the Opposition has said that he accepted the independent umpire, supported the independent umpire, warned what a terrible thing it would be if parliament were to set penalty rates, as the Greens had proposed. He warned against all of those things, and now he has abandoned that commitment to the independent umpire because he now wants to make a political point and run a scare campaign. The government is consistent in its support for the Fair Work Commission. It has had a reference—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call. He does not need to keep repeating 'point of order'. I am ready to give him the call.
Mr SHORTEN: On relevance: it was a 14-word question. Does the Prime Minister accept that he has the power to stop the cutting of the penalty rates—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Mitchell can leave under 94(a).
The member for Mitchell then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: I refer everyone to yesterday's Hansard on interjecting when I am seeking to make a ruling on a point of order. I can refer the Leader of the Opposition to yesterday's Hansard on the conduct of points of order and my earlier rulings today. It does not matter how many words the question has. I refer to my earlier rulings about relevance to the policy topic. Points of order will not be used as an opportunity to repeat the question. There is special leniency for leaders of the opposition and prime ministers, but it is not unlimited. There are precedents where that has been withdrawn. I do not want to be a Speaker who has to take that action. The Prime Minister has the call; he is in order. The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Centrelink
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Human Services. Will the minister inform the House how much money has been recouped for hardworking taxpayers from the government's welfare fraud and compliance efforts? What would the impact be of any alternative approaches?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (15:10): I thank the member for Bowman for his question. In the last financial year the government identified $695 million in overpayments from our social welfare fraud and compliance efforts. That was an increase of 300 per cent since we first came to office.
As the member would know, our efforts have uncovered many stark cases from the Labor years, which, frankly, the Labor Party should have uncovered, had they done the work. I mentioned a few of those yesterday and for the benefit of the House I would like to mention a few more of those cases. Here is a Victorian man who in 2010-11 and 2012-13 reported less than $11,000 to Centrelink while he was on benefits for the entire time while the Tax Office said that he actually earned $65,000. A South Australian woman reported $2000 to Centrelink in 2012-13 when the Tax Office said that she had actually earned $40,000. And a Queensland gentleman who reported less than $22,000 for 2011-12 and 2012-13 while the Tax Office said that he had earned more than $52,000. These are stark cases which the Labor Party did not even bother to check and ask about.
I am asked about alternative approaches to ensure the integrity of the welfare system. The Labor Party, through the shadow minister, has made it very, very clear that, if they get back into office, they would do exactly what they did in the past. That is what they said they would do. Let us have a look at their record. Under the Labor Party that the number of welfare fraud and compliance checks decreased from 462,000 checks at the end of the Howard era down to only 110,000 checks by the time they exited office. They had almost abandoned trying to do these checks. The money recouped for the taxpayer in their time in office decreased by 50 per cent. My department estimates that, if we abandon our compliance efforts and revert to what they did in the past, there would be a $1 billion hit to the budget. That is what it is—a $1 billion hit to the budget if we abandon our compliance efforts and do exactly what the Labor Party say they would do. That is their policy but, of course, the Labor Party do not care because it is all somebody else's money—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston.
Mr TUDGE: Another million dollars on the credit card and another billion dollars for the next generation to pay off—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston is warned.
Mr TUDGE: On this side of the House we have much more respect for taxpayers' money and we will continue this compliance work that we are doing.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:14): I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
75th Anniversary of HMAS Perth
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:14): This day 75 years ago, the HMAS Perth was sunk in the Battle of the Sunda Strait. There were 681 sailors, airmen and civilians on the Perth; 353 were killed in the battle; and four of those who survived the fighting and reached the shore died of their wounds. The survivors were taken into captivity by the Japanese and 106 died during their captivity.
The Perth was in the company of the United States cruiser Houston. They had both been the only two large ships to survive the defeat in the Battle of the Java Sea in February. These disasters followed hard on the heels of the fall of Singapore, which we remembered and honoured here not so long ago. As these ships sailed through the Sunda Strait to Tjilatjap on the south coast of Java, they were overwhelmed by a much larger Japanese force. The Perth fought to the last of its ammunition. Captain Hector Waller gave the order to abandon ship and only then. The Houston was torpedoed and sank 20 minutes later. Waller was last seen standing on the bridge of his ship, and he was awarded a posthumous mention in dispatches for gallantry in the face of the enemy and for setting an example of wholehearted devotion to duty. What a remarkable generation they were. We honour and we remember the service and the sacrifice of the crew of the Perth—those who lost their lives in the battle, those who were injured, those who were taken prisoner and died in captivity, and of course we honour the service of them all, including the 200 who returned home.
On Sunday, the President of Indonesia, President Joko Widodo, and I acknowledged the 75th anniversary of the sinking of the Perth and we reaffirmed our commitment to work together to strengthen cooperation in the area of maritime cultural heritage. We are working closely with the Indonesian government on how to protect the wreck of the Perth, and there will be a joint dive led by Indonesian authorities and our own National Maritime Museum in the course of this month. That is when it is scheduled. This is another occasion when we remember that extraordinary generation—the service and the sacrifice they made to keep us free. Lest we forget.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:17): The ship bells of HMAS Perth are currently in the Perth Town Hall. They are a reminder of the battle in the Sunda Strait, off Indonesia, 75 years ago. HMAS Perth started life as an English warship which we then purchased off the English in 1939. Whilst we appropriately remember the circumstances of the sinking of the Perth, the Perth's battle honours reflect a part of the story of the Second World War which perhaps we do not talk enough about. I talk about our naval history in the Second World War. Today is the 116th anniversary of the formation of the Navy. It is the 50th anniversary of when we had the White Ensign, because we had to change our flag from the British flag because the British were not in the Vietnam conflict. We had to use the White Ensign. The point about the Perth is that it reflects the best of our naval traditions. It fought in the Atlantic, in the Malta Convoys which kept Malta free from the Nazi invasion and in the famous sea battle of Matapan where Australian warships took on far larger Italian and Axis forces and did very well. It supported our troops in Greece and the retreat. The Perth supported our Diggers in Crete. We made a valuable difference to that unsuccessful campaign. Then, of course, the Perth came to the Pacific.
As the Prime Minister said, there were 681 Australians on the vessel. Three hundred and fifty-three were killed in action, which is a horrendous number—frankly incomprehensible in today's life for us—but 106 of the survivors died in imprisonment. As the Prime Minister said, Captain Hector Waller exhibited the sorts of characteristics which make us more proud to be Australian. Many here would have had family who were seafarers in the First World War and the Second World War. Certainly I do. I have spoken to members of the family now passed about naval conflict. When you remind us of the Perth, the best tribute to the memory of the crewmen, including those from USS Houston—our American allies who died in service with the Perth—is the simple plaque in the member for Brand's electorate, in the Rockingham Naval Memorial Park. It says these words: 'Still on watch in Sunda Strait.' We honour them. We remember them. Lest we forget.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (15:20): I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr FITZGIBBON: I do indeed.
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter may proceed.
Mr FITZGIBBON: The member for Murray might show some courtesy by staying for it. During debate earlier today on the farm household allowance, the member for Murray claimed that, during the backpacker tax debacle, growers in the horticulture sector called my office only to be either hung up on or laughed at. That is so fanciful to be obviously untrue. It is a very severe reflection and insult upon my staff—my loyal, hardworking staff. If he has any honour about him at all, he will stand in this place, withdraw and apologise to them.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House with papers.
Mr Fitzgibbon: Come on! Get up and do it! Get up and do it!
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter!
Mr Fitzgibbon: Cower away! Cower away! Go on! Cower away!
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter!
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides! The member for Hunter!
Mr Fitzgibbon: I apologise, Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter can. I gave him the opportunity and latitude on the matter, consistent—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I would like you to apologise to the parliament, not me. I gave you the opportunity to raise the matter, to raise it in a very broad way, and then you conducted yourself in an unparliamentary manner.
Mr Fitzgibbon: And I appreciated the opportunity, Mr Speaker, and I do thank you, and I apologise. But you can imagine how upset I am—
The SPEAKER: No, that is it.
Mr Fitzgibbon: at the reflection on my staff.
The SPEAKER: That is it. That is it.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Turnbull Government: Health Care
The SPEAKER (15:22): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ballarat proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
'The Government’s failure to deliver on its health promises'.
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—
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (15:22): This week we have seen the government's division, their infighting and their chaos splashed across our parliament. But the government's chaos is not just impacting on the fortunes of the Prime Minister; it is having a very real impact on the lives of Australians around the country.
There is no better example of the failures of the Turnbull government than their approach to health. This week, we have seen two extremely serious—and I can only use this word—stuff-ups when it comes to health. They have had a ripple effect on Australians right throughout the country. These two stuff-ups are: the absolute debacle that is the government's outsourcing of the National Cancer Screening Register, and, as we have learnt today, its failure to deliver a single life-saving continuous glucose monitoring device for the thousands of children with type 1 diabetes.
I will be honest: it is hard to point to a single policy area where the government is effectively delivering any of its policy decisions. But the implications when it comes to health are particularly serious and are clear proof that, while the government and its ministers are so busy focusing on themselves, they have absolutely dropped the ball when it comes to health.
It is tough competition for the worst stuff up in the health portfolio, but I think the bungling of the rollout of the program to detect cancer earlier would have to be the top contender. So the most egregious recent stuff-up from the Turnbull government is the National Cancer Screening Register. The government said they would roll out the Cancer Screening Register on 1 May, which would include a new cervical cancer screening test to detect cervical cancer earlier. This is the establishment of a new register that combines the national cervical cancer screening register—currently undertaken by state and territory governments, and, in Victoria and South Australia, the Victorian Cytology Service—and the National Bowel Cancer Screening Register, currently operated by the Department of Human Services.
The government handed the register to Telstra, against the advice of Labor—and against the advice of the experts, including the AMA and the college of general practice. This was despite Telstra never having operated a register such as this. The government signed a $220 million contract with Telstra, only days before the election was called and before the enabling legislation had passed this place, effectively privatising the register. It was a highly controversial decision—and, in the words of Yes, Minister, a highly 'courageous' decision.
Labor and the Senate were assured—and it is on the public record—during the process of the passage of the legislation through this parliament, that, if the legislation was passed on 30 October, the register would be up and running by 1 May. The legislation passed the parliament on 13 October. We have now learnt that the register will not be ready until 1 December. We have not learnt that from the government coming in and actually telling people—telling Australian women—what is actually happening with the cervical cancer screening register. We learnt about it because of the media. And the Chief Medical Officer released a statement after it was in the media.
The implications of this are incredibly serious. They have now completely stuffed up the implementation of the register and, in turn, delayed the new cervical screening test and, potentially, put women's lives at risk. That is what you have done.
With the revelation that the government has bungled the rollout of the new test, experts have warned that: women could delay cervical screening, having already put off their Pap smears in the hope that they would have the five-year HPV screening test instead; the cytology workforce is in crisis since, as only one in every six cytologists will be needed for the new program, people have already taken voluntary redundancies or accepted new positions; and there are already delays in Pap smear results, and these will only get worse, we are told, potentially blowing out to six to eight weeks.
The government has had to patch together an emergency bailout because of its stuff-up, and that will cost millions of dollars. That is what you have done with the stuff-up of the National Cancer Screening Register.
It is a very serious failure of policy implementation. The government has completely failed to explain to Australian women what has occurred or to advise them of what they should do, and the minister, frankly, has been missing in action on this issue—he has not been out there explaining to Australian women what has happened and what they should do. And, only days before it was revealed that the government had completely stuffed this up, there was the minister, embarrassingly, out there spruiking how great the new scheme was. And it will be a great scheme, when it is place, in December—not May; December. So the fact that he has been missing in action on this stuff-up—when he should be explaining it and accepting responsibility—and has not had the decency to front up and tell women what has been happening, has been a complete disgrace.
If that were not enough, we have also learnt today that the government is yet to deliver a single one of the life-saving continuous glucose monitoring devices promised to children with diabetes at the election. The government committed to delivering 4,000 continuous glucose monitoring devices to Australians under 21, from 1 January. That was when the rollout was supposed to have started. But not a single device has been distributed, and the government cannot give a clear date for when the devices will actually be delivered. In fact, as we have seen in Senate estimates this morning, the government's own department seemed completely unaware of the government's promised start date. It did not even know about it.
Continuous glucose monitoring devices can literally save lives, by continually monitoring blood glucose levels through sensors placed under the skin, and linking to hand-held devices such as mobile phones or to insulin pumps. CGM technology reduces the risks associated with type 1 diabetes and improves quality of life.
There was a bipartisan commitment to the delivery of these devices, with Labor making a broader commitment, and there should be no excuse for this government's failure to deliver. It is eight months after the election, and the government still does not have its act together on its key promises. It cannot go around telling one thing to desperate families—many of whom have approached me—only to leave them in unacceptable limbo. You have not explained why there is a delay with your election promise. Australians were expecting it on 1 January and people were coming up to me and asking, 'Where is it?' Where have you explained that there is a delay? You have not done so. Own your own mistakes.
Of course, this all comes in the context of the government's continued attacks on health. Remember the day before the election when the Prime Minister promised that no Australian would pay more to see a GP under his Medicare freeze. That was simply not true. Australians are already paying more for GPs, out-of-pocket costs for health are increasing and, despite the heroic attempts by the minister to try to claim otherwise, bulk-billing rates for GP consultations continue to fall, with the most recent data showing that bulk-billing rates for non-referred GP attendances continuing to drop across the country. In almost every state and territory, bulk-billing for GPs is lower than it was at the time of the election. The reason, of course, is that this government is making health care less affordable for every Australian, with the Medicare freeze already forcing GPs to drop bulk-billing and to increase out-of-pocket costs.
We have had the Prime Minister also cutting $1.3 billion from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and increasing the co-payment by up to $5—the biggest price increase for prescription medicine in a decade. The government's Medicare safety net cuts will see Australians paying more and more before extra support kicks in, and then they will receive a reduced amount. Cuts to bulk-billing incentives, the payments which give pathologists and radiologists a specific incentive to bulk-bill, will mean bulk-billing rates for those important tests will fall, co-payments will rise and patients will be forced to pay more for tests and scans, or skip them altogether. The failure to properly fund our public hospitals has seen elective surgery waiting times blow out under the Turnbull government.
This is the legacy of this government when it comes to health. Everything they touch turns into a complete and utter stuff-up. Millions of voters rejected every single one of the Turnbull government's health cuts at the last election. Nothing has changed, and nothing will change unless the government drops their savage health cuts and unless we get rid of this appalling government.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (15:32): I am delighted to address this topic. Let me begin with Labor's abysmal health record. Labor left the health system in poor health. I will also deal with the irresponsible claims that those opposite make, in defiance of the best medical advice provided to the government not only by the experts within government but also by those outside. I will also inform the House about what we have delivered not just since the election but even in recent weeks, including progress on medicinal cannabis, which Labor never delivered; progress on Kalydeco, which Labor—
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
Mr HUNT: No, you never did it on your watch, in your time. You failed. You were absent, and we delivered it. There is also what we have done with the NHMRC. We also have the highest half-year rates for bulk-billing on record—higher than any year under Labor—and the lowest private health insurance changes in a decade.
But let me run through Labor's record, just to put all of this in context. Labor hate private health insurance. They ripped $4 billion out of private health insurance. They ripped $4 billion out of private health insurance and they did it on the back of a grand deception. Here is what the member for Gellibrand said before they went into government:
... Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates …
And what happened during their period in government? It was summed up very neatly by the member for Sydney after their period in government. She said:
How did I pay for it? I paid for it by targeting private health insurance.
A complete fraud.
They cut $2½ million from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and medicines and pharmacy, and they put seven major drugs approved by the PBAC on delay. They put those drugs on delay. That included drugs for schizophrenia and drugs for pulmonary condition. That is a disgrace and something that we will not be doing on our watch. The PBAC passed drugs that were fundamental and lifesaving and Labor put those on delay. They did it; we will not.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House is under a general warning. If this does not cease, I will be starting to evict people under 94(a).
Mr HUNT: But it goes beyond that. They slashed a billion dollars from dental by cutting chronic disease dental care. They cut $664 million from Medicare for GPs—and, by the way, they introduced the freeze on GP rates. They then cut $500 million from Medicare for pathology and $450 million from Medicare for safety net protection. They are not Medi-friends; they are Medi-frauds—rolled-gold Medi-frauds. That is what we have on the other side. Add to that, there is the small matter of the not-so-super clinics that never actually appeared.
Those opposite have a disgraceful record. But let me add one more thing. As all members of this House would know, in the lead-up to the last election, they made much of the notion that they were going to reintroduce $57 billion of hospitals funding. But, when the Treasurer called them out and they were forced to account for what they would do, they produced $2 billion—a $55 billion shortfall; a four per cent achievement. In anybody's language, four per cent is a failure—unless you are Senator Kitching filling out a few HSU forms on behalf of other people. It was a four per cent achievement and a $55 billion shortfall. That is why they have dropped their hospitals campaign, because they were caught out red-handed misleading the Australian people, something that was a disgrace, something for which they were caught and something which now shows they were never Medi-friends; they were always Medi-frauds—rolled gold, through and through, caught in the act. That is what Labor did, and remember this always: Labor hate private health insurance.
More than that, you then come to the claims they make today. They have made two claims. The first is in relation to women's health and the test for cervical cancer. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners have had no hesitation over the years, where they have had disagreements with this government, in making those disagreements well and truly known. Here is what the president of the college, Bastian Seidel, said only last week:
… I commend the government for its sensible decision to delay implementation until all necessary systems are fully in place.
The college's media release stated:
… the decision this week to delay implementation of the program was a positive indication of the Federal Government's commitment to safe, high quality health care for Australian patients.
Do you know what? On coming into office, I checked through a number of programs and this is one which I discussed with the CEO of the company in question. My judgement was that this was not ready to proceed. It was not going to be able to proceed safely, so at my request the Chief Medical Officer made this known immediately and within three days we had an agreement with the pathology sector to ensure safe and continuous protection of women and testing of women. Our commitment is to women, to achieve these protections and to introduce the new test when it can be safely done, on 1 December. That was the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. If the opposition disagree with the Chief Medical Officer, they should say so. If they disagree with the royal Australian college of GPs, they should say so.
The other one that they have tried to have a go at today is the implementation of continuous glucose monitoring. Here is what Diabetes Australia said today:
… Diabetes Australia fully supports the current timing and approach being taken for the safe, reliable and effective delivery of the new CGM program to maximise the benefits to children and young people with type 1 diabetes.
I have only been in the job a few short weeks and we are in a position, as the opposition spokesperson knows, to make an announcement in the very near future about an imminent commencement. That is why those opposite are trying to get this in today—because they know we are going to do what they never did in government. How much did they allocate when they were in government? Zero dollars. How much have we allocated? Fifty-four million dollars. We have allocated $54 million; in government they allocated zero dollars. We are doing what they never did, and we have the support of Diabetes Australia and the support of the DANII Foundation.
Let me go to broader issues. What have we achieved in just the last five weeks? We have achieved medicinal cannabis import rules, which at my request have been expedited and will see Australians given real access to medicinal cannabis on prescription for the first time where it is fully available. That is something that no-one in Australian history has done previously. We have announced the listing of Kalydeco for cystic fibrosis sufferers between two and six years of age. This is fundamental and vital and should be welcomed, and I believe it is welcomed by members on all sides. We have announced subsidised access to olaparib, a drug for women with gynaecological cancers that will save them up to $100,000 per year—again a tremendous result. The NHMRC will receive funding of $125 million, with over $30 million going to cancer research in Australia. Beyond that, we have announced the highest half-year bulk-billing figures for GPs in Australian history, up over 3½ per cent compared with when Labor was in office—over 3½ per cent higher than Labor's figures.
Do you know what? Our four pillars of our long-term national health plan are based on a rock-solid commitment to Medicare first and foremost. Our funding goes up from $22 billion to $23 billion to $24 billion to $25 billion. It is based on a rock-solid commitment to our hospitals, where funding goes from $17 billion to $18 billion to $20 billion to $21 billion. It is based on a deep personal and national commitment to mental health and preventive health. We have already taken real strides on that front and we want to work with the opposition on that—I would hope there is no back-chatter on that one. Finally, on medical research, we have created a Medical Research Future Fund, which the ALP never did. We are committed on all four fronts and we are delivering where they failed.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (15:42): It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the shadow minister for health's matter of public importance, because goodness knows there is a long history of failure to deliver on health from the members opposite. At the risk of incurring the wrath of the Minister for Health while he is still in the chamber and being accused of backchatting here, I would like to suggest that we welcome the long list of additional PBS medicines that the minister has made available in the last few weeks, which will make important inroads for those with cystic fibrosis and cancer. You will get no argument from members on this side of the House, Minister. Nor will you get argument around the release of research grants money and NHMRC money. But, Minister, that is your job. You are the Minister for Health. It is the core business of your portfolio to release moneys for medical research. It is your core business to make sure that there are affordable medicines available for Australians everywhere.
I noted your comments earlier around private health insurance. It is extraordinary that you should point to private health insurance as some emblematic moment for the Liberal Party and as a sign of achievement, because, if you were to talk to Australians anywhere in this country, they would have a lot to tell you about their experience of value for money when it comes to private health insurance. Indeed, Minister, private health insurance premiums increased by $200 in the last year alone. That is hitting family budgets massively, not just in my electorate of Newcastle but across Australia. An increase of $200 means that families are now paying around $900 extra in annual premiums every year under the Abbott-Turnbull government watch. When you talk to men and women, particularly those who might be facing a cut to their penalty rates now, they are struggling to figure out how they will pay these bills, how they will make ends meet in their family budget. When you jack up private health insurance premiums by those massive amounts, when you sit by and allow that to happen in this country, then you should not be surprised to see private health membership plummeting.
Indeed, what you should be focusing on is how you might support public health in this country, how you might support Medicare. I do not know what it is about the Liberal Party, but you cannot keep your hands off Medicare. There is some ideological opposition that is embedded in your DNA that makes you unable to stand up for Medicare. Forty-odd years ago, you fought us tooth and nail in this parliament—in Old Parliament House down the road—around trying to introduce what was known in those days as Medibank. I am sorry you are leaving, Minister Hunt, because I do enjoy this banter with you! I am sure the Australian people listening to this debate will understand that sometimes this kind of truth hurts, it cuts to the core.
I think the way that these cuts impact on everyday men, women and kids in this country concerns all of us on this side of the House. The member for Macarthur and I are speaking to people all around the country at the moment about the lived experiences of cuts to Medicare under this government. I see the member for Dobell is sitting in the House with us. Indeed we very much appreciated the opportunity to visit her electorate and the neighbouring electorate of Robertson, where we learned that some 30,000 men and women have chosen to delay or defer going to see a GP because they cannot afford it.
It is not just the fact that you have failed dismally to remove a single one of Tony Abbott's cuts from the table—all those zombie cuts are still there on the table—it is that men and women are already paying increased prices. This is something that is already happening. To delay seeking quality medical advice in this country is a matter that concerns Labor members of this House greatly. We believe in a strong public health system. We believe that every Australian deserves the right to access affordable, quality health care wherever they live, regardless of the size of their wallet or their bank account. We will always defend Medicare. Labor created Medicare, and we will always fight to protect it. (Time expired)
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (15:48): I love it when the Labor Party come up with these MPIs on health! They always assume that, because they had Gough Whitlam and invented Medicare, they are the saviours of the whole health system. But when you look at the pillars of the health system—whether it is the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the private health insurance system, grants to the state governments for their hospital systems or workforce measures—the coalition government has certainly got the runs on the board.
Let us start with bulk-billing rates for GPs. I have health department figures. The bulk-billing rate in 2012 was down to 81.9 per cent; now it is up to 85.4 per cent. There were 105 million bulk-billed GP services in 2012; now there are 125 million. There was $10.85 billion in Medicare billing in 2015—a $300 million increase. That is $1¼ billion more than in 2013. There is a lot of criticism about the freeze, but who brought the freeze in? They did.
Let us look at the health workforce. There was a problem with the health workforce. There were not enough medical practitioners, so we had to rely on overseas trained doctors. We are rejigging the workforce paradigm so that we get homegrown doctors working, training and living in regional Australia. We have a number of incentives. We announced $94 million for the Integrated Rural Training Pipeline and regional training hubs to expand the postgraduate training footprint. We have expanded the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program. We have three new university departments of rural health lined up for Western Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. We have given an extra $20 million to the Flying Doctor Service. The General Practice Rural Incentives Program is focused on areas where it is needed—not the major regional cities like Cairns and Townsville but places that are really rural and understaffed. There is a $3 difference in the bulk-billing incentive for rural general practice. We have $40 million being spent on more intern training opportunities in rural and private situations.
You also have to look at this lie about our so-called and mythical cuts to hospitals. In this four-year period, $2.9 billion more is going to state hospitals. By 2020, that will be $21.24 billion. That is $4 million more. This year, there is $7.9 billion more funding than in the last year of the Labor government—$7.9 billion more. We have retained Activity Based Funding, but like any sensible manager of massive amounts of money, we have capped it at 6½ per cent growth. Previously it was uncapped and unfunded. The incentive programs that the previous government rolled out after 2010 did not even have KPIs. As the Minister for Health mentioned, we have facilitated medicinal cannabis. We have allowed importation of CBD plants, we have liaised with the states and we have changed it from a schedule 9 to a schedule 8 drug. The setting up of authorised prescribers and a Special Access Scheme is underway. On smoking and obesity—the biggest things facing the country in terms of preventive health—we have got many runs on the board.
We have our quit smoking program and our Don't Make Smokes Your Story program. We have put $160 million into the Sporting Schools program. That is not for elite sports but for schoolchildren. Six thousand schools are taking part in Sporting Schools. We have the Healthy Food Partnership with the industry, public health and consumer groups. We are driving reformulation, portion control and better choices in the packaged food system with the health star rating. We have increased the child dental benefit back up to $1,000. We have not cut programs like the very effective Chronic Dental Disease Scheme that the minister was referring to.
In the PBS, over 1,000 new drugs have been listed, including ovarian cancer drugs such as olaparib, lung cancer drugs, hepatitis C treatments, cystic fibrosis drugs and the list goes on. (Time expired)
Ms LAMB (Longman) (15:53): It was only one month ago to the day that we as Australians were celebrating the 33rd birthday of the Hawke government's revolutionary Medicare reforms. I could spend the rest of my five minutes discussing how great Medicare really is—how many lives it has saved, how many good people it has enabled to live normal and also extraordinary lives and how much good it has done for the Australian people—but I will not because we all know this, right? Even the opposition who have fought so hard over these past three decades to tear down our country's globally renowned universal healthcare system could not argue against this, because they know it too. They have used it and so have their constituents.
Despite their knowing that Medicare bettered the lives of 21 million Australians last year alone though quality and affordable GP visits, vital tests, scans and hospital treatments, they continue to pursue their remorseless attacks against it. They continue the trend of breaking pre-election commitments that has become commonplace in Liberal-National administrations. Right now, I think I need Medicare myself because this government's sheer neglect for the Australian people makes me sick. I am sure it makes the 170,000 constituents who make up my electorate sick too.
In mid-December last year, I had the pleasure of meeting with Dr Steve Osman-Toddhall. He practices as a GP at the Hub Medical Centre in Burpengary. It was just over three months ago that I spoke with him. Not six months prior to that, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull promised that, under his government, nobody would pay more to see the doctor as a result of the coalition's extended freeze on the Medicare rebate. I can tell you that this government has forced Dr Osman-Toddhall to cease bulk-billing new patients between 18 and 65 years of age and, in many cases, to drive up costs by more than $20. Sure, this might not mean much for the opposition. It might not mean much for the minister or the assistant minister. But for the people of Longman this can mean the difference between sickness and health.
Do you know what the median total personal income in Longman is? It is $27,000 a year. Think about that for a moment. That is just over $500 per week. The ordinary, hardworking members of Longman struggle to put food on the table as it is. How are they expected to respond to the unforeseen medical costs that undoubtedly surprise us all from time to time? I was speaking with a local woman, Christine, the other day. She is a resident in my electorate. She reached out to me. She was appalled and disgusted by this government's decision to force her elderly mother to pay an extra $83 every couple of months to have a special heart blood test. She needs this test; it is vital for her health. She used to receive it under Labor's Medicare. The Liberal government have turned their backs on this poor woman. They would much rather line the corporate pockets of their friends with some questionable tax cuts. It is not just this elderly person in my community who needs Medicare either. It is everyone.
Let me quickly return to that income that I talked about earlier—that $500 a week. $500 a week is the median personal income for people in my electorate. That figure is going to drop very soon, too, if this government gets its way, because that $500 a week includes income secured through penalty rates for some people who live in my electorate. Up to 700,000 Australians are going to be affected by this government's unfair, unacceptable and undeserved cuts to penalty rates. Just imagine if you were counting on that extra income to pay the exorbitant medical fees that are being inflicted by the Prime Minister. Imagine that you are on $500 a week and part of that money comes from penalty rates and they are going to be cut.
I know the opposition across the floor feel threatened by Medicare. It is the pride of our nation and the envy of countries all over this world. It signifies one of Labor's greatest achievements. We, the Labor party, the architects and protectors of Medicare, will not sit by and watch this government put people's health at risk.
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (15:57): I have to say that I am getting a little bit tired of getting up here to talk on yet another misguided matter of public importance from those opposite claiming we have failed and that we are doing the wrong thing when Labor and especially state and federal Labor in my home state of South Australia are the only failures in the health space that I am aware of. I am just going to run through a few of the successes achieved by the coalition government. There are so many that I do not think I am going to have time to go through them all. I know that people in my electorate and other Australians already know full well that they are benefiting from our record investment in health in this nation. Australians know this because their medicines are cheaper than ever. GP bulk-billing rates are higher than ever at 85 per cent. The number of services subsidised by Medicare has increased under us yet again. This is because we are rock-solid when it comes to the health of Australians and we are rock-solid on Medicare, the funding for which is increasing consistently by about $1 billion every year.
On top of this, we are tackling harder issues such as obesity and ice addiction. We have rolled out our $160 million Sporting Schools program to keep kids active. I am particularly interested in the Girls Make Your Move campaign which looks to encourage more young women to get involved in sport. We have invested $398 million to underpin the National Ice Action Strategy and have geared up our Primary Health Networks to help with this terrible scourge as well.
We have also started to fix the health issues of tomorrow with a substantial investment in health and medical research to the tune of $125 million. I just want to quickly mention the work that Flinders University, which is in my electorate of Boothby, and the Medical Device Research Institute are doing in a smart ageing area. We know that ageing and looking after our ageing population is one of the big challenges that we face. They are doing some remarkable work in this space. I look forward to seeing the results of that research during my term.
Those opposite always want to talk down our contribution to health. They like scaring the elderly. And they did that throughout my campaign in Boothby. I do not know on what basis they can do this because their track record is undeniably poor. They cut $1 billion from dental care and means tested it. They cut $500 million from Medicare for pathology. They cut $664 million from Medicare for GPs. And they cut $450 million from Medicare safety net protections. For me, as a South Australia, Labor's track record in this place is of no surprise, given that we are seeing the result of their appallingly bad policies in South Australia. They have decimated our health system, they are lurching from crisis to crisis and, of course, they cannot even keep the power on. I would like to know what my South Australian counterparts opposite are actually doing about this. I do not see them doing much at all.
Let us look at the biggest failure in South Australia health at the moment—the failure to open the brand-new $2 billion new Royal Adelaide Hospital. We have one of the world's most expensive buildings sitting there without its doors open and without a single patient being treated. It is an absolute failure. I hope that the state Labor government can pull this together and provide health care to the South Australian people for this huge investment.
Labor are closing a number of hospitals and changing services. They are calling this the Transforming Health program. Personally, I see it as the 'Trashing Health' program. One of the most disgraceful decisions under this program in South Australia has been the closure of the repat hospital, the war veterans' hospital, in my electorate of Boothby. I was at the bombing of Darwin ceremony last weekend in my electorate in the heritage-listed chapel on the repat hospital site. I heard firsthand the distress that our veterans feel about the closure of this wonderful hospital that has served them for some 70 years. It is also a really important community facility, particularly for elderly people in my electorate. It is just another example of Labor's appalling record on health.
Labor has brought chaos to South Australia's health system. Given another chance to govern, those opposite would undoubtedly do the same to not just South Australia but the entire nation.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (16:02): I would like to thank the member for Ballarat for bringing this matter of public importance to this House. It relates very strongly to the reason that I am here today.
The clue to what sort of government this would be came early—it came late on election night on 3 July. What we have seen since has been a cranky, insular, sullen, confused and intellectually lazy government. We already knew before the night of the 2016 election that this was a government whose solution to housing affordability was for voters to go out and get some rich parents. Its solution to the most important public need of all, health care, now appears to be: let the public system slide away—Medicare—and hope that private medicine will take up the slack, at least for those the government thinks matter.
Increasingly, we are faced with evidence of the government's failure to deliver on health policy and health commitments. Yes, there are pockets of good news—the funding of some new medications, as already mentioned, for cancer therapy. Genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis, is one area. And I congratulate the minister on the approval of the use of medical marijuana in severe neurological disorders. I congratulate him. It was a good decision. It was one, I agree, overdue. I am just sorry the minister is not here to hear my congratulations on this matter. However, the most serious problem within this government that I see is a lack of an overall policy framework for health care for all Australians that is equitable and accessible. The government not only has no overall philosophy of health care but has no commitment to transparency in health care. Whilst it publicly states that it does not want to privatise or Americanise our healthcare system, it has privatised our national cancer register with very little debate. It is now looking to privatise our national hearing service. This information is only leaked very slowly. There is no transparency. Certainly, there is very little debate.
The coalition went to the election with very little clear health policies apart from freezing Medicare rebates for years, a move which all agree would gradually reduce bulk-billing to make health care less accessible to many vulnerable people. The Prime Minister came to my electorate to announce funding for insulin pumps for people with type 1 diabetes under the age of 21. He made a great fanfare about it. The parents of my patients with type 1 diabetes were very grateful but anxious that access to these tremendously life-changing treatments be available as soon as possible. The commitment was given to have them available on 1 January. However, now, eight months after the election, this policy has still not been implemented. Also, promises about mental health services have not been translated into action, and $1.4 billion has been cut from preventative health and health promotion grants.
Many of the Closing the Gap targets in Indigenous health have not been met, and the government just seems confused about what to do next. In my state of New South Wales, hospital waiting lists are longer now than they have been for decades. More and more people are struggling to access specialist care. Dental care is out of reach for many, particularly the elderly. Waiting times in my electorate for cataract surgery are over a year. Many people cannot afford to see an ENT surgeon, affecting many children with hearing loss. More and more people are struggling to access specialist neurologists and cardiologists where gap fees can now be over $300. The Liberal- National parties do not seem to understand the importance that access to health care has for some of the most disadvantaged and the importance of adequate funding of Indigenous health services, in particular, in making overall community wellbeing much improved.
I am in this place because in my practice I was increasingly concerned with the difficulty my patients were in having access to care. I was a medical student in 1975, when the Whitlam government introduced Medibank. That was destroyed by the Fraser Liberal government. I started my private practice in 1984 with the advent of Medicare, which was introduced by the Hawke Labor government. I saw the dramatic improvements that occurred. Demonstrably, only the Labor Party has a clear commitment to universal, affordable health care. This government's health policy is polarising and inequitable. They appear to have no real idea about complex health issues or the importance of equality in health care. Sir Michael Marmot, the former President of the World Medical Association, has spoken of the importance of the social determinants of health. In paediatrics, good health care can be a passport out of poverty and into education and social mobility. On this side we understand that. (Time expired)
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (16:07): I am very pleased to rise and speak in defence of the government's record on health, especially in light of some of the consistent comments that we are hearing from those opposite. The opposition gets fewer than 100 opportunities a year to raise matters of public importance, and it speaks to the paucity of their policy development and their readiness for government that they waste one of the opportunities here today trying to give the appearance that their shadow minister is keeping up with the government's work and our imminent announcements.
Those who care about the quality and standard of debate in this country, those who have ever wished that politicians might be restricted from saying blatantly untrue things and those who have an interest in sound policy should be listening very carefully to the words that the opposition are using here today with respect to health funding. They ought to be alarmed. Listening to Labor's lies you might conclude that the government is delivering less in health than Labor did in office. It is a fact that this government is delivering record levels of money—
Mr Husic: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that that unparliamentary language be withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): I ask the member for Brisbane to withdraw that word.
Mr EVANS: I withdraw. It is a fact that this government is delivering record levels of government money towards health. We are delivering more this year than last year, more than in any year before, and certainly more than in any year under Labor. Anyone who is inclined to believe these Labor lines should just ask a Labor politician to show them an actual graph of the funding delivered over recent years. They will see very clearly what I am about to say. The budget papers show very clearly how the federal government's health funding is growing every single year. The federal government's contribution to health is $71.4 billion this financial year. It rises to $73.4 billion next year and $76 billion the year after that. Then it rises to $79 billion in 2020. Anyone who cares about health funding can confirm what I have just said for themselves. These numbers are in the budget papers. People can go straight to the source and check this out themselves. The budget papers are online—budget paper No. 1, statement five, page 5-49. It shows the government spending there and our commitments under area under health. It is all there in black and white. They can see straight away that the numbers are going up, not down. They are going up by an amount that is higher than the rate of inflation and the rate of population growth combined. It is increasing per person, per year in real terms. You can clearly see there that about half the federal government's health budget goes to Medicare. I will come back to Medicare in a moment. About a quarter of it goes to the states to help them run the states' hospital systems. The federal government, of course, does not manage hospitals. The remainder is split between the PBS, other health services and specific Indigenous health services.
There is one area in the budget where those numbers are not going consistently up and are not at record levels. That is administration expenses. It is probably a topic for another day to talk about the difference between the coalition and Labor governments when it comes to managing administration expenses.
Those opposite have said quite a bit about Medicare in their speeches here today, so I will focus on that for a moment. The budget papers show that this government is delivering record funding to Medicare. It is there in black and white. Our funding of Medicare is going up each year, not down, and it is going up by an amount higher than population growth and inflation combined.
Labor's next line that needs to be called out is that they are trying to say that they would have spent more had they had the opportunity. They want us to believe that if they promised to spend more, then somehow that equates to cuts on our side, even though our actual funding continues to go up. This is a case of promises, promises from Labor. Labor promised extra funding at exactly the same time as they promised this country three surpluses. That never eventuated either. The ABC fact checker called this out repeatedly. I quote from the ABC fact checker:
It is far from certain that the Gillard promises would ever have been fulfilled. They were looking far into the future and their increases were never budgeted for. History shows budgets change dramatically from year to year, and something cannot be taken away if it was never given in the first place.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:13): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on the shadow minister's MPI on this government's atrocious failures in health care. As the member for a regional electorate, nowhere has it been more appalling than in regional health. The day before the election the Prime Minister promised that no Australian would pay more to see a GP under his Medicare freeze. This was a line. Australians are already paying more for GPs and out-of-pocket costs of health care are increasing. Indeed, in October last year the AMA recommended that fees rise to $78, which will leave patients $41 out of pocket. Perhaps members opposite can explain to us how we have an election, yet the AMA is recommending that fees go up. It does not align too well with what Prime Minister said. This year's increase to private health insurance premiums sees a $200 increase. Since 2013 they are up $900 a year. That is 23 per cent in five years. These are massive out-of-pocket costs that ordinary Australians simply cannot afford.
Australians pay more out of pocket for health care than people in many countries. The out-of-pocket cost increases are 4.5 times higher than government funding over the last year. According to the Productivity Commission they have gone up six per cent, compared to 1.3 per cent in government funding. On every measure this government is failing the health needs of Australians.
The Turnbull government is making health care less affordable for every Australian, with the Medicare freeze already forcing GPs to drop bulk-billing—an increased out-of-pocket cost. Indeed, bulk-billing in December dropped from 84.6 per cent nationally to 83.9 per cent. They are rabbiting on about the increases in bulk-billing, but the figures show they have dropped over the last quarter from 84.6 to 83.9. In Tasmania, it is even worse: from a low bulk-billing rate of 76.4 per cent, they have dropped to 74.5 per cent. In one quarter they have gone down 1.9 per cent. The only place in Australia that bulk-bills less than Tasmania is the ACT. It has the highest income in the country; Tasmania has the lowest. Tasmania should have the highest bulk-billing rate in the country given its comparatively low incomes, but it is 13 per cent lower than New South Wales, which is comparatively much richer.
Tasmanian Dr Graeme Alexander was reported in November saying patients avoid seeing a GP because of the cost. He said:
This problem is just going to get dramatically worse and very quickly.
The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners president, Bastian Seidel—a Tasmanian—says that the drop is concerning. He said:
You are going to end up in a public emergency department or you will be calling an ambulance out.
These are the real consequences of when you fail to properly fund Medicare, when you fail to properly fund the health system and when you fail to properly look after primary health. It shoves people over to the hospital system, which is already under stress. Bastian Seidel continued:
That is even worse because we know an ambulance call-out costs the taxpayer at least $800 and a presentation to a public hospital emergency department costs the taxpayer at least $200.
So for small savings in one area, you end up with a massive blowout in another area. It just points to failures all round by this government.
Their failure to properly fund our public hospitals has seen elective surgery waiting times blowout to the worst they have ever been. And Tasmania's dedicated elective surgery hospital, the Mersey, just to the north of my electorate, is currently on a one-year funding deal. It expires in July this year, and yet we have no indication from this government about the future of that funding deal. Patients are left in the lurch; they do not know what is going on. The Tasmanian Liberal government is tearing its hair out. It is trying to get a deal out of this government and it needs some answers about what is happening with the Mersey. Is it getting a one-year deal, a three-year deal, a five-year deal or a 10 year deal? Nobody knows, and yet the members opposite think that is just fine.
As for hospitals more generally, the Royal Hobart Hospital is 'exceeding capacity' says the state Tasmanian health minister, Michael Ferguson—and he is a Liberal. Ramping is endemic. Patients are being interviewed in corridors. (Time expired)
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:18): I rise to oppose this quite wrong suggestion made in the matter of public importance before the House today. At the heart of this matter is delivery. Delivering is exactly what the government is doing in the area of health care for all Australians, as it is in so many other policy areas. I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate today to correct the members' opposite misguided view, and shed some light on the reality of the government's extensive delivery on its health promises.
As I have previously spoken about in this place, I am passionate about tackling the issue of mental health not only in my electorate but also across the country. The House knows the horrific figure that one in five Australians will suffer from a mental illness in any given year—20 per cent. The need for a favourable change in these figures is more pressing than ever before and this government is delivering in this area. The government is investing $192 million to support mental health care, to fund suicide prevention regional trial sites and provide for additional headspace centres. This is hardly a failure. Indeed, it is a sign of the government's decisive action on mental health.
The government's commitment and record in delivering on its health promises is by no means limited to mental health. Indeed, as we have heard, the coalition government expenditure on health continues to grow each and every year. In 2015-16 the government committed $69 billion to spending on health. This commitment has increased to almost $73 billion this budget year and is projected to exceed $79 billion in 2019-20. If we consider the total spending on health, aged care and sport in 2016-17 it amounts to $90 billion.
Funding is not everything in health, but we recognised that we needed to invest more. We promised to do so, and we have delivered in every state and territory. As the member for Fisher, I represent many constituents who understand the health related challenges of living in regional Australia. This government promised to improve access to health care in regional and rural areas of Australia, including on the Sunshine Coast. The government made this promise, and it is delivering on that promise.
We recognise the unfortunate reality that access to health services is often an issue for those Australians living outside major cities in regional and rural settings. That is why we are delivering new initiatives to help. The government is delivering $93.8 million over four years for a new integrated rural training pipeline to coordinate the different stages of medical training within regions. The government is delivering $131.2 million over four years to build upon the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training program and to support clinical placements in non-traditional settings. The government is delivering a $20 million funding boost to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. The government is delivering an incentive of $9.25 per service for GPs that bulk-bill eligible patients in rural, regional or remote areas. The list goes on.
I am just sorry that I only have five minutes to talk about this matter, because I could stand here all day and talk about the wonderful things that we are doing in space. But unlike those opposite, we on this side of the House prefer to let our record and actions speak louder than our words. These actions are delivering tangible results today and will undoubtedly further improve the standard of health care available to people across the country in the future.
Let me just give you a few examples. Despite the unjustified and desperate actions of those opposite during the election, Australian patients are receiving more benefit from Medicare under a coalition government than ever before. This government has a rock-solid commitment to Medicare, and funding continues to increase year on year. In the second half of 2016, Australians received more than $10.85 billion in Medicare benefits. This was $1.23 billion more than the same period in 2012 under Labor.
The Turnbull government clearly understands the health needs of the Australian community and continues to deliver in all areas of the health portfolio. Today's debate is simply another example of the Labor Party's dishonest and inaccurate characterisation of the coalition's healthcare record. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for the debate has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Report
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (16:23): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report on its Review of Administration and Expenditure No. 14.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr HASTIE: by leave—This report meets one of the committee's key statutory oversight responsibilities to review the administration and expenditure of the six Australian intelligence agencies. The report I am presenting today relates to the 2014-15 financial year. The committee received submissions and conducted private hearings with each intelligence agency and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security during the 44th Parliament. The committee's final hearing was conducted on 2 May 2016, shortly before prorogation of that parliament. The review lapsed on prorogation and was resumed early in the 45th Parliament.
The period under review was characterised by significant changes to Australia's national security legislation, to meet evolving security threats, especially posed-by terrorism, and protect the Australian people and our interests. Four separate bills were reviewed by this committee during 2014-15. Following passage of those bills, agencies gained new or expanded powers.
In August 2014, the government announced a cross-agency funding package to support counter-terrorism measures. At the same time, the government announced that the efficiency dividend would no longer apply to the Office of National Assessments and the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
The committee welcomes these measures. In relation to the Inspector-General, the committee considers it necessary that as the intelligence agencies are additional powers that the parliament also strengthens its oversight of those agencies. This includes ensuring that the Inspector-General's office is resourced so that it can discharge its responsibilities. I am pleased to report that the committee considered the six intelligence agencies to be overseeing their administration and expenditure appropriately.
While the funding pressures faced by agencies were alleviated during 2014-15 by the additional Commonwealth funding to support counter-terrorism capabilities and other initiatives, the committee noted that ASIO and ASIS continued to face pressure in other areas as sought to detect, disrupt and defeat threats to the Australian people. The committee, bipartisan in composition, takes the task of securing Australian people very seriously and therefore wants to make sure that our agencies, especially those in the field, have everything they need to get the job done.
For a number of years now, the committee has monitored the impact of the efficiency dividend and other savings measures on the intelligence agencies. As in previous reviews, the committee again sought assurances that each agency continues to have the necessary resources to address Australia's national security priorities. ASIO and ASIS are now the only two intelligence agencies that are not quarantined from the efficiency dividend. The committee has questioned why the efficiency dividend should continue to apply to those organisations, noting in particular that a January 2015 review of Australia's counter-terrorism machinery by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet recommended that, in addition to ONA and the Office of the IGIS, the efficiency dividend be removed from or significantly reduced for the operations of ASIO, ASIS and the AFP.
The committee has recommended, in line with the PM&C recommendation that the efficiency dividend be removed from all ASIO, ASIS and AFP operations. As we saw yesterday, and as the minister outlined during question time, with the arrest of Harsem Zahab, the threat of terrorism inspired by ISIS is real and close to home. It is our duty to make sure ASIO, ASIS and the AFP—those charged with protecting us from those who would do us harm—have everything they need to be operationally effective.
Our intelligence and security agencies need sufficient base funding to meet all of their obligations. This means that funding is required to not only to deal with the increased threat to the community from terrorism, but also other significant external threats such as foreign espionage and cyber attacks. The committee will continue to monitor the effect of funding decisions in its future reviews.
I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:28): We know from people speaking out in the media, dairy farmers in particular, how distressed they are that it has taken the government so long to correct the issues with the farm household allowance. As I said in my contribution before question time, we have known about this issue since 2014 yet it has taken over three years for this government to put this bill before the House to try and resolve the situation. Even as late as last year, in October, South Australian dairy farmers spoke out about their long wait for assistance.
In an article in the news, these dairy farmers spoke about their demoralising process of asking the federal government for help. Hoping to get urgent financial relief but then waiting for up to six months for money to come through from the federal government was hard. They said that money available under the farm household allowance scheme is 'delayed by too much paperwork and not enough resources' helping to process approvals.
Complaints about Centrelink are not new. Chronic understaffing by this government has created a problem for many seeking help or access to allowances that they are entitled to. I know that in my area it is not just our dairy farmers and farmers that have had delays. There are people waiting for their aged-care packages that have been delayed, some by as much as nine months.
This is something that the government refuse to address. They refuse to work with the staff of Centrelink. They sacked a group of people working for DHS. They have not replaced them. As a result of their inability to staff Centrelink properly and to have people with appropriate training, we have seen delay after delay, not just for our farmers seeking the farm household allowance but for people seeking aged-care support, people seeking Centrelink support and people in the most recent scandal that the government have still not addressed, the debt recovery system.
In fact, in an audit report in 2015, the National Audit Office said that almost a quarter of all calls made to Centrelink went unanswered. This is a report made in 2015. The average wait time has increased by 17 minutes. Yet we have not seen any action from the government to increase staffing levels or to resolve the ongoing EBA negotiations with their front-line Centrelink team. You would think they would be embarrassed about the fact that almost a quarter of calls to Centrelink went unanswered, but they are not. Instead, they blame the people making the phone calls, or they blame the hardworking, overworked Centrelink staff.
This also gives me a chance to address something that the minister raised yesterday in this House, where he tried to suggest to the House that I had released information about constituents in my electorate to the media without their consent. This is wrong. Like many here on this side of the House, I have been inundated with phone calls from constituents who have received debt recovery letters from this government through its robo-debt collection scheme. Many of them, angry about their treatment on receiving this letter, have not only sought my support but also spoken publicly about their experiences.
Three individuals gave my office their consent for their details to be passed on to local media outlets. We asked them if they would be comfortable, if they would be happy, for us to pass their details on. All three of them said yes because they believed it was important that their story get out there and that they challenge the government. Like the farmers in South Australia have, these three constituents in my electorate said: 'I want to speak up. I want people to know my story. This government needs to change its tune.'
They are people like Robert Baker in Kangaroo Flat, who received a debt notice for $2,558, only for it to be reduced to $600 because the tax office had wrongly classified his employer as two employers instead of one. He is still pursuing Centrelink for $1,200 because he hired an accountant to help to try to correct a mistake that Centrelink had made.
There is also Robyn, who lives in Flora Hill, who was sent a debt notice by this government for $1,300 for the period 2010-11. She rang Centrelink several times, attempting to connect. When she finally got through, she was then told by staff that they did not understand what was going on with her case. They then rang back to say that a mistake had been made and she did not have to pay the debt. This was weeks after, causing much distress for Robyn.
Colleen from Newstead is another one who spoke up. She was sent a debt notice for $2,500, only to discover through challenging it, through working with my office, that she only owes $422.
All three acknowledge that Centrelink staff are working hard and it is not their fault. It is bad government rules. It is the government sitting back and delaying—delaying constantly to address the process problems that they have. This is a problem throughout regional Australia, whether it be people with debt recovery notices, many of them incorrect, or people with their aged-care packages or family tax benefits or childcare subsidies that they are entitled to, or our farmers.
Lots of people have a frustrating experience with Centrelink, and it is in the government's power to do something about it. Increase the trained staff in Centrelink. Hire more people. You will create jobs at the same time as helping to solve a problem that we have in Centrelink. Work with the Centrelink team to ensure that people's claims are processed on time and in an efficient manner.
I would like to finish with a few of the comments that were made by farmers and dairy farmers in central and northern Victoria. Whilst they acknowledge that some of them will need this allowance from time to time, they are frustrated that it appears to be the only thing that the government is really doing to help them. What they say in Gunbower and what they say in Cohuna is that they want this government to focus on water policy and pricing. What they say is that they want this government to focus on mobile phone coverage and the need for long-day childcare facilities. What they say they want this government to focus on is infrastructure like roads, schools and medical facilities. These are the issues that these farmers raise when I chat to them. They expect the government to be there to provide a strong social welfare net, but they are disappointed that they have to rely on it because this government has failed these towns and failed these communities in so many ways.
Whilst Labor accept the amendments in this bill, we say they are three years too late. We also use this opportunity to call on the government to properly fund and resource Centrelink so those in need get the help they need on time and efficiently.
Mr GEE (Calare) (16:37): I rise to support the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017, which amends the Farm Household Support Act 2014. I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on this bill, which will make a real difference to the lives of people living on the land who are experiencing financial hardship. We need to support farmers. More than 307,000 people are employed in agriculture, the biggest employer in rural and regional communities. Australian farmers produce enough food to feed 80 million people. Not only do they provide 93 per cent of the domestic food supply, they also support an export market valued at more than $41 billion per annum.
As this House has heard, the farm household allowance program gives farmers and their partners a maximum of three years income support to meet basic household needs while they make decisions about the future of their farm businesses and take action to improve their circumstances. Prior to the coalition government's introduction of the farm household allowance in 2014 there was no support payment generally available to farmers in hardship outside exceptional circumstances, and exceptional circumstances was abolished by the previous Labor government, leaving no support for farmers facing temporary hardship. That was an appalling state of affairs, a shameful episode which has fortunately been addressed by the Liberals and Nationals. This bill is part of the continued improvement of this badly needed assistance. What we want from the opposition is a positive contribution to policy debate on agriculture. I take note of the contributions earlier by the member for Hunter and the member for Bendigo. They were very negative. I think that is a disappointment to farmers. What can I say about the member for Hunter? He seems like a decent guy. He has a few issues with telephones, as we heard in the House today, but he is overwhelmingly a decent guy. What he has to do is make a positive contribution to agriculture in this country. I think we saw that with the backpacker tax, when farmers were overwhelmingly disappointed at the negative way in which that negotiation was approached by the member for Hunter. My message to the member for Hunter is very simple. If you are going to wear the RMs you have got to back it up with some very positive contributions to agricultural policy debate.
As at 3 February 2017, more than 7,000 claims for farm household allowance have been granted, which highlights the demand for this program. The need is indisputable. On average, the government is paying out $1.16 million per week in farm household allowance to farm families. The Liberals and Nationals have listened to the concerns of farmers, and the government is moving to make improvements to the delivery of the farm household allowance payment, making it easier for those who are experiencing what is often debilitating hardship.
When the farm household allowance program commenced in 2014, eligible farmers had applied to them the same waiting periods as those of other government income support programs. There were good reasons for doing that, but the reality is that that has proved impractical for farmers hit by hardship, and it is often livelihood threatening hardship that they are faced with. If a farmer qualifies for the allowance then it means the hardship is real and they should not be required to wait additional time. The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill will amend the Farm Household Support Act to ensure that recipients of the allowance are not required to serve an ordinary waiting period or liquid assets waiting period before they can commence receiving the allowance itself. Forcing eligible farmers who have been found to be in need of support is unduly bureaucratic and ignores the often harsh reality of living life on the land. The effect of a longer waiting time can reduce the ability of farmers to support the operation of their businesses. When they need help they need it quickly, and you can bet that if a farmer is making an application for support it is a decision not taken lightly. The need is real and urgent. Farmers are, by their very nature, self-reliant and resilient people. The farm household allowance is time limited, so removing the waiting period will bring no extra burden to the budget. This measure is about cutting red tape and removing another hoop that needs to be jumped through before assistance is delivered.
Another way the government is improving this program to benefit agriculture and our nation is in the treatment of assets. Currently there are certain assets used by farmers in the operation of their businesses which are not actually counted as farm assets for the purpose of allowance assessment. They have to be assessed as non-farm assets which have stricter asset limits. It sounds incongruous, it sounds unduly bureaucratic, and it is. It can also prevent assistance getting through to farmers when it is needed. These assets include water rights and shares in marketing cooperatives, and this bill rightfully places them back in the category of farm assets. The proposed changes are common-sense reforms which will be welcomed by farmers across central western New South Wales and across Australia.
The seat of Calare has a large and proud farming history. It is Australia's food basket. The lamb and beef on your dinner table or the wine that you enjoy with it may well have come from the Calare electorate. The apples, cherries, flour or canola oil that you buy in the supermarket could also have been made or produced in the central west. I would like to take the opportunity today to mention just a few of those farmers from Calare who work day in, day out to put food on our table. Take, for example, Mitchell Clapham: in partnership with his wife Daryl he runs a mixed grazing operation on two properties covering 1,200 hectares south-east of Mudgee. Their business includes fine wool and beef production, and Mitch has maintained an active interest in rural issues, serving with the New South Wales Farmers Association at a branch and district level. He is a tireless advocate for farmers in central western New South Wales.
Tim and Sophie Hansen run Mandagery Creek Australian Farmed Venison, near Orange, which was established in 2002. Venison is not a usual choice of livestock. Tim's father Andrew first stocked deer to get rid of blackberries. Today their red venison is sold and stocked right around Australia, with Sophie promoting the product and educating the domestic market through her blog Local is Lovely. Members of this House will note that Sophie was recently recognised for this work when she was named Australia's Rural Woman of the Year for 2016. Our communities are very proud of Sophie.
Bernard and Fiona Hall are second-generation apple and cherry growers from Orange. Bernard and Fiona, along with their three children, live and work on Caernarvon. They grow galas, red delicious, Fuji, pink lady and Granny Smith apples, along with kordia and sweetheart cherries. Bernard and his brother, Tim, learnt the ropes while working his father's orchard, Bonny Glen, which is also situated on the outskirts of Orange.
Another great example is MSM Milling, which began in 1991 when Peter and Bob Smith started a small canola seed crushing operation on the family farm at Cudal. A new, fully integrated seed crushing and oil refining plant was established on a greenfield site at Manildra, starting its operation in 2007. In 2011 the business commissioned a new on-site packaging facility and began distributing to the food service market, offering canola oil and other oil types and blends. Their most recent product, Auzure, is MSM Milling's retail brand of canola oil, and they now export to many countries right around the world, including our northern neighbours in the Pacific region.
John and Margie Lowe run Lowther Park near Lithgow and has been a part of the Lowe family since the 1920s, when it belonged to John Lowe's grandfather, Eric Thompson. Today, John, Margie and their two sons Charlie and William, along with John's mother, Audrey, all work together to run their property, running sheep and cattle over the 2000 acres. John and Margie are also on numerous committees and put their spare time into make a difference for future generations of country people. I note that Margie had a big hand in overseeing the show girl competition at their recent local show at Rydal.
Dan and Steve Owens are fourth-generation farmers running Nanena at The Lagoon, near Bathurst. Their father, John Owens, is a well-known local resident who in 1986 was named the Bathurst Region Farmer of the Year. Their farm is 6,000 acres where they farm angus cattle and merino sheep, while John Owens farms out of Boonah on the Gormans Hill Road.
The Peffer Pastoral Co was started in 1955 by the late Ivo Peffer and his wife, Marie. They started with six chooks on a patch of farmland which is now suburban western Sydney. Running a wide range of farming activities, they are also well known now for Canobolas Eggs, which is situated just out of Molong on a property called Vale Head. Canobolas Eggs was conceived by the Peffer family when the egg industry was deregulated in the early 1990s and under Ivo's guidance sons Graeme and Colin Peffer decided to launch a new brand when many in the industry were encouraging small producers to maintain the status quo of industry-wide egg marketing. Today a third generation of Peffers have joined the business: Rob and Josh. Rob received a Nuffield scholarship in 2015, studying world's best practice in noncage egg production systems.
They are certainly doers and great primary producers in central western New South Wales, as are the Webb family, who have been in the Tarana district between Bathurst and Lithgow for almost 175 years. They run both Wonga and Eastwood near Rylstone in a family partnership, producing fine wool merinos, beef and cattle, and some lamb at Tarana. Bruce Webb works on Wonga, while his sons Robert and Hugh have off-farm business interests, including managing large land holdings for absentee owners and running the National Asset Protection Agency, which provides a range of services for bushfire mitigation and protection
Twenty-seven-year-old Stuart Tait manages 1,600 hectares of land in conjunction with his parents, John and Jo. Their primary enterprise is producing certified grass fed Angus beef cattle for the domestic and export markets, with their secondary enterprise being dryland cropping to produce cereal grains and oilseeds. It is a business which has been operating for 36 years. A career in agriculture was always firmly in Stuart's mind after growing up on the family farm; however, it wasn't until he finished school at Kinross Wolaroi School in Orange and spent time working overseas that this goal was cemented. Having recently returned home to work full time and continue expanding the family business, Stuart recently received a 2017 Nuffield scholarship. He will investigate integrated beef and cropping systems, encompassing all facets of a farming operation combining beef cattle and broad acre cropping, including dual-purpose grazing crops, soil and nutrient management, productivity optimisation and grazing management. Stuart also recently established and chairs a farm discussion group for young farmers in the Mandurama-Blayney district. After just four months, the group already has membership of over 20 farmers and industry professionals. Well done on that initiative.
Of course, I would also like to mention Chris and Anne Barnes of Capertee, who are making a wonderful contribution to primary production in their district, and also Floyd Legge, who the chair of the Molong branch of the NSW Farmers. Floyd and his mother, Jessie, run a highly successful stud sheep operation, Ridgehaven, near Cudal.
These are just a handful of growers from my electorate of Calare contributing to this vital part of the Australian economy. Our farmers are the bedrock of our country communities, and this legislation makes an important contribution to supporting them when they need help the most. I certainly commend it to the House, and I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for his tireless work on behalf of country people. They know he is always out there working for them and looking after them, and they appreciate it just as they are really going to appreciate the passing of the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:50): It is with unusual pleasure that I rise to contribute to the debate today on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. I do this in recognition of and noting that the Deputy Prime Minister has brought this bill forward. He knows like we do on this side that, if you have a problem at Centrelink, the Minister for Human Services is not the one to fix it, so he's clearly stepped in!
I also want to congratulate the member for Indi for her tireless advocacy on this issue. I have heard her, particularly over the Christmas period, speak several times on the ABC in relation to farmers getting quicker access to the farm household support that is available through Centrelink. She has done it in the context of the situation for dairy farmers in her electorate, and her advocacy has been very important, I know, to bringing this bill in front of the House this afternoon.
For the past two months, I as the shadow minister for human services have raised issues to do with Centrelink, and I will come to those in a moment. I do want to focus on this bill to begin with. These changes are a start and they do go some way towards fixing the problem of access to the allowance for farm businesses. Waiving the ordinary waiting period and the liquid assets waiting period will take 13 weeks off the standard waiting time for farmers in need of assistance. That is incredibly important because the situation as it stands right now and prior to this bill being enacted is that farmers were applying, particularly as a family, for farm household support, but they were having to wait for a period where it became just impossible for those farmers, and dealing with Centrelink in terms of trying to access this support was absolutely impossible. So it is welcome, and Labor does welcome it. As previous speakers have indicated, Labor will be supporting this bill. Waiving the ordinary waiting period, as I said, is important, and changing the asset test is also very important.
The asset test will be changed by the definition of 'assets', to ensure that owning water rights, for example, does not preclude those struggling from receiving assistance. I am sure that this House and those in the gallery understand that it is not very helpful having water rights included in the assets test if there are other issues to do with the carrying out of that farming operation that are making it impossible to make ends meet. Let's be clear what the farm household allowance is. It is not some sort of overlaying of money that farmers can access because they feel like it. Farmers access this when things are absolutely desperate. One of the great attributes of our farming community is that they are proud. They have, as the previous speaker just said, for many generations often held that farm holding and do not want to ask for help. So for farmers to put up their hands, to go to Centrelink, to say 'we need this support' is a very big thing indeed. Then having the indignity of having to wait for 13 weeks or more and having the indignity of being treated as a 'leaner' by the instrumentalities involved is not the way farmers should be treated, and that is how they have been treated up until the enactment of this bill. So I hope the enactment of this bill does take away those attitudes and does take away the stress and the stupidity of the waiting time. When people go to Centrelink for help they go when they are desperate. They go when there is no other option. They do not need the indignity of having to wait for hours and hours for assistance, and then days and days and weeks and weeks and months and months for that assistance to come through. That was the actual situation here.
Since the farm household support payment was established, more than 7,000 claims have been approved. Feedback from the community has been clear. Farmers and their families are struggling to access the system. When they do so through Centrelink, they can find themselves on the phone for hours, fighting against a sometimes confusing bureaucracy to try and access the help. When they do complete the application process, many have found that they are not eligible on the basis of assets they own, which they could not possibly sell without endangering the longer term viability of their farming operation. I think that point is extraordinarily important. You cannot sell off assets that have been hard fought for and hard won, that make up a farming operation. You cannot sell those assets just to meet some sort of criteria that makes no sense in the first place.
But let me say at the outset, as the shadow minister for agriculture has already told you, Labor will not oppose these changes. We will make the lives of those struggling on the land slightly easier if they require assistance, as will the passing of this piece of legislation. But I do not want the House to misunderstand Labor's position here. When it comes to Centrelink, the Turnbull government is failing our community, and it is failing hardworking farmers. Tinkering around the edges of this system will not fix the underlying issues with this program. Those issues are related to the chronic under-resourcing and undervaluing of Centrelink as an institution and in particular Centrelink staff, as the previous member from this side of the House just outlined.
I speak to Centrelink staff. They all tell you they want to help the people who contact them. They want to do their jobs. But in many instances it is made almost impossible. They are totally overstretched and unsupported by the government. The government makes poor policy decisions, and it is Centrelink employees who have to bear the brunt. I have already articulated the enormous waiting times and the confusing nonsensical bureaucracy that is in place. There have been 5,000 job cuts over the past five years from Centrelink; 35 million unanswered phone calls; robo-debt; a pay freeze; month-long waits for age pension applications—in fact, I had a person contact me just the other day who had applied months and months ago for an age pension application and has heard nothing; not to mention a minister who is intent on attacking staff and misrepresenting Centrelink clients at every turn.
The real problems at Centrelink will not be solved by these amendments. They will only be solved when the government finally starts valuing this department. The Turnbull government has bought into its own rhetoric. It does not believe in our welfare safety net. To those opposite it is nothing but an unnecessary nuisance. I do want to speak about that. The welfare safety net in Australia is something we should be proud of. Many countries, including many First World nations like America, do not have a welfare safety net. It is something that is a right. It is not something that is a gift to the Australian people or Australian individuals. The welfare safety net is a right and it is a well-earned right for the people of Australia. They have spent so long demonising those who cannot find a job, those who need support while caring for a loved one or those receiving a disability support allowance, they are starting to believe it is okay to treat people poorly.
In the eyes of those opposite we are all 'lifters' or 'leaners' and anyone who receives a Centrelink payment is a 'leaner'. Despite the best efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister, those receiving the farm household allowance are viewed through exactly the same prism by the Turnbull government.
I note at this point the comments of Senator McKenzie from the other place on this matter. She says farmers have told her:
… about unsatisfactory service from Department of Human Services and Centrelink with staff unable to provide accurate or consistent information about farm household assistance resulting in excessive waiting times for benefits …
This bill proposes nothing that would solve those issues. They are the result of a neglected agency. While I am happy that these amendments make some positive changes, they will not do anything to help the thousands of people who need the Department of Human Services every year. In fact, while this bill does fix some problems with the program, it does not do anything to provide extra support or adequate resourcing within the Department of Human Services. It does nothing to solve the problems identified by those opposite. For three years the government has denied any problems at all with this program. Now it proposes minor amendments which do not even tackle the bulk of the issues raised. The government knows the issue here: they need to provide more resources to Centrelink.
As I said earlier, farmers hate to ask for help. It is almost cultural. When they need it, when they are driven to a point where they have to ask for it, they are desperate. It is not fair to subject them to incredibly callous treatment. They have hours on the phone or at a service centre, not to mention endless paperwork and an online system which is extremely difficult to use. These are the experiences of many who interact with the Centrelink system, including farmers and those in our rural communities. It is damaging not just because it means people have to spend hours unproductively waiting on hold. It is also damaging because it subjects those already under incredible stress to even more anxiety.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows well that farmers experiencing hardship have terrible mental health outcomes, and we have heard of the level of suicide that exists in many cases with farmers who have reached the end of their tether. It is a tragedy. As the previous speaker from the government, the member from Calare, said, farmers often go back several generations. They provide part of the identity for Australia. We hear and we have learned in our schools that Australia was built on the back of the sheep.
My own personal story is that whilst I might now be the member for Barton I grew up in a very small country town called Whitton. It had about 200 people. It was a tiny little place in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area in the Riverina part of southern New South Wales. The farmers around there were sharefarmers or irrigators, and many of the people who lived in the town were the labour that worked on those farms. My great-uncle, who raised me, was a station hand for many years on Kooba station, which was one of the very big landholdings back in the day where I grew up. I picked fruit. I sorted tomatoes at night. I played in the rice stubble and the flood irrigation areas. I worked closely with the Isolated Children's Parents' Association as an educator. I understand rural life because the first 16 years of my life were spent in very rural communities in those places.
The problem with the system is not just the waiting times or eligibility criteria. More than that, it is about the difficulty of getting access to the system in the first place. Last year we heard reports of some farmers waiting six months to receive assistance. Nothing in the legislation before the House will remedy that. This is supposed to be a crisis payment. It is supposed to help farmers keep food on their tables, and it is failing to do so. If the Deputy Prime Minister really cares about this issue, once we have finished this debate he will walk over to the Minister for Human Services, who has just joined us in the chamber, and tell him to fix his broken system.
Whether we are talking about the farm household allowance or any of the other payments available through Centrelink, people deserve to be treated with empathy and respect. They deserve to maintain their dignity. I, along with my colleagues, support this legislation, but I call on this House and those opposite to take real action to ensure we support appropriately those who need it. In the case of this legislation, it is farmers who are doing it hard, and in some sectors of the rural community, particularly the dairy industry, they are doing it very, very hard.
Farmers and their livelihoods and their presence are important to the way in which we see ourselves as Australians. They deserve our help. They deserve our support. I am pleased about this legislation, but I want this system to be fixed. I want Centrelink and the way in which it is being managed, the way in which it is being resourced and the way in which it is carrying out its duties to respect the right of Australian people to have a social welfare safety net.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (17:05): I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. The farm household allowance was introduced back in 2014 in response to the national review of drought policy. In essence, it provides a payment for farmers in very difficult times. In terms of its value, it is a payment which is the equivalent of a Newstart payment. It can apply for up to three years, and it is there for farmers to help them deal with unforeseen events such as a drought or a natural disaster so they can get through it and, hopefully, get back on their feet.
At the moment, about 4,780 farmers are receiving the farm household allowance. Overall, the allowance aims to get them through that difficult time till they can get back on their feet—perhaps the drought breaks; perhaps the harvest comes back in—and they no longer need that assistance. The allowance itself is governed by policy from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister is in charge of that policy, but it is administered by my department, the Department of Human Services. Consequently, there is an interaction between the two departments.
This bill is the Deputy Prime Minister's bill and it deals with some policy issues. I would like to just touch on those but also touch on some of the administrative matters, some of which the shadow minister has raised herself. We have been hearing some of the frustrations that farmers have been experiencing for some time in relation to getting fast access to the farm household allowance. Late last year, there were a number of round tables with farmers and with other stakeholders across Victoria to understand more deeply exactly what their concerns were and to help us identify how we might be able to deliver these payments more expediently, more efficiently and more quickly for the farmers in need. Those workshops were led by Senator Bridget McKenzie, and I certainly commend the work that she did. They also involved very good work from the member for Corangamite, Sarah Henderson, as well as the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan, amongst other members who have taken a very strong interest in this matter. Officials from both my department and the Department of Agriculture attended those series of round tables.
Throughout those round tables, we got some very frank feedback from people, and one of the more important pieces of feedback was the time that it took for the farm household allowance applications to be properly addressed and dealt with. Farmers do have more complex financial arrangements than many other people do. They have more complex asset structures—perhaps they have trusts or other arrangements—which sometimes mean that it does take more time to get that information together. But, nevertheless, on many occasions it was taking up to four months for a farmer's application to be properly assessed, for all the information to be provided and for it to be going backwards and forwards between my department and the farmer before their payment was provided to them. That, in some respects, goes against the whole spirit of what we were trying to achieve with this allowance, which is that we get money, cash support, to the farmer when they need it.
Consequently, off the back of those round tables, we have made two important decisions. The first important decision, which was made by the Deputy Prime Minister, was to make some policy changes, and that is what this bill represents. There are very important policy changes contained in this bill. Perhaps, most importantly, farm household recipients will no longer be required to serve the ordinary waiting period or face the liquid assets waiting period once their payment has been granted. This means they will be able to get their payment straightaway, as soon as the farm household allowance has been granted. There are also some changes to the water assets test. The allowable threshold for non-farm assets is currently $1.1 million, and that threshold is now going to be $2.5 million. These are some of the important measures contained within this bill, which of course we fully support.
I would like to touch on some of the administrative changes which we have also made, taking into account the feedback that we received from those round tables and from the farmers directly. We have made some very significant administrative changes to the way the farm household allowance is processed. We currently have a trial in place. That trial applies across the country and to every single new application for farm household allowance. In essence, the aim of that trial is to reduce the time that it takes to process the farm household allowance from what has been taking up to four months to 28 days for the more simple cases and within six weeks for the more complex ones. So this is quite a stark change in terms of the time frame from being something like four months on many occasions to being four weeks for the more simple cases and six weeks for the more complex cases. That trial is underway. So far it seems to be on track, but we will obviously carefully monitor the results of that trial. We will learn from it. And if it proves to be successful then, of course, that trial will continue and become a mainstream effort.
In essence, the pilot includes a number of significant changes to enable us to achieve those targets. First of all, we have established a new dedicated farm household allowance team to deliver the program from the first inquiry through to the final payment. Essentially what that means is that the farmer will often have an individual person whom they are dealing with, whom they can constantly deal with. There will be much more telephone communication between that individual customer service officer and the farmer. On most occasions, it will be with exactly the same person. If it cannot be with exactly the same person then there will be a warm handover to another case officer so that the farmer does not have to repeat the same story, time and time again. That is going to be absolutely critical. Also, there is going to be significantly increased outbound telephone contact with the applicant to assist them with each step of the process.
As I said, farmers often have very complex financial arrangements. In the past, the time delays have been due to information having to go backwards and forwards between the farmer and the department. The farmer would provide information and if that information was not correct then a letter might be sent out to say, 'You haven't provided all the information.' Time would elapse to get that letter back, it would be reassessed and then a further letter might go out. This process will be expedited largely through having dedicated officers who will be connected with the farmer, who can jump on the phone and walk them through that, and therefore get the information more quickly.
The combination of the policy changes which were announced in this bill, in concert with the administrative changes, which I have been overseeing and are being piloted at the moment across the nation, mean that it should be a much better experience for the farmers. It means that the farmers should be able to get their emergency payments, which is what a farm household allowance is, quickly, expediently and when they need it, which is often when there is a crisis going on. I think those policy changes are good. They should be commended, and I hope we get bipartisan support for them. I think the administrative changes are also very good. I hope that we also get support from the opposition for those administrative changes.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (17:14): I rise to speak to the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill with a little bit of apprehension. Of course, Labor will be supporting these measures, but, as the member for Barton mentioned, this is just tinkering around the edge. As someone who comes from a regional electorate with many dairy farms—in fact, the largest dairy farm in the Southern Hemisphere, a Van Diemen's Land Company farm, is in my electorate—I have spoken to a number of dairy farmers who have attempted to access this payment but have met barriers to doing so in a way that meets their financial commitments, particularly when their milk cheques are not coming through.
The farm household allowance is like many things coming from this government. It has all the best intentions but fails in its delivery. Despite not admitting that there was anything wrong with the allowance, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the member for New England, has finally woken up and has made some welcome changes to the eligibility criteria for this scheme. However, the minister knows that farmers have struggled to get any assistance under this program for a very long time.
Labor supports amendments to the Farm Household Support Act that will make it easier for farmers to access the support they need when they need it. The removal of waiting periods before payments can be received is a welcome change. However, the debacle of this scheme, the long delays for farmers in obtaining support, the onerous process that farmers need to go through in order to just make an application and the delays in processing these claims have plagued this minister for years. Now he finally decides to act—many months after the dairy crisis hit my electorate as well as many other areas in the country. The minister mentioned the trial; the trial is welcome but a little bit too late, particularly when farmers in my electorate have been struggling, in the current economic climate, with the dairy crisis for many, many months and have been asking for support from this government to fix these delays for just as long.
I go to a story outside my electorate, in South Australia, as this is something that occurs nationwide. This is from October, when dairy farmers who were hoping to get urgent financial relief from the federal government were waiting up to six months for anything to come through—six months. The minister said, 'We will put some new resources into Centrelink,' and obviously that was welcome, but it did not make a dent. Six months on, and this is from a farmer in South Australia, 'They sent us a letter saying that we had been rejected simply because we had not given them, Centrelink, the information they had asked for, which we had.' This is what the member for Barton was talking about. This amendment does not go to the crux of the actual issue here, and it has been completely ignored by the government. These changes will assist, but they are not the final solution to the problems with this allowance.
As I have previously highlighted, what the member for New England seems to have forgotten are the many farmers who have been facing numerous hurdles and incredible amounts of delays in accessing what was supposed to be urgent assistance. While farmers were struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table, the government, in its wisdom, asked them to spend numerous and onerous hours filling in paperwork to apply for help. After facing this hurdle, their application was then thrown into the abyss of Centrelink's off-the-shelf IT system, which was never designed to process their application.
An example from my electorate is that someone's application was held up for more than three months because of this glitch. It was not until my office intervened that this matter was resolved, and it should not have been that hard. While the payment was finally resolved, about $4,000 of back pay was then held up because the flawed system had assigned incorrect banking details to the client.
Despite numerous calls from around the country for improvements to both the application process and Centrelink's flawed IT system, the member for New England was nowhere to be found. However, after many months of silence, he finally resurfaced by responding to a letter from me about the delays in the farm household allowance. Not surprisingly, he admitted in his response that he knew there had been problems all along. I quote from his letter:
I acknowledge the FHA—
the farm household allowance—
assessments are detailed and can take some time before they are approved, resulting in a delay in the period from first applying to when funds are made available …
He went on to briefly touch on the pain, stress and anguish caused by these delays, and again I quote:
I appreciate that waiting for applications to be assessed can be stressful …
'Stressful' is one word for it. Unwarranted anguish, fear, anxiety are others, and I could go on. You just need to go and speak to a dairy farmer who has been experiencing the challenges of their industry to know exactly what their emotions are.
What the member for New England did admit was that there was a problem, and he knew it was hurting. But he just was not prepared to look further to do anything about it for many, many months—in fact, years. Despite a promise to bring additional dairy liaison officers into the field and new Centrelink workers to process claims, this has made little difference, as I highlighted earlier about farmers in South Australia. No surprises there. The member for New England, the minister for agriculture, the minister responsible for this scheme and a member who allegedly stands up for farmers knew the system was flawed, but that is where it ended—not only that but he has completely ignored my invitation to come to Tasmania to hear firsthand how this policy and other policies were affecting farmers. It is really not that hard to jump on a plane and come to Tasmania. But perhaps the member for New England is not welcome.
At the recent Senate inquiry hearing into the dairy industry held in Burnie, in my electorate, it was revealed to those present, when they asked if the member for New England had come to speak to the farmers, that he was not allowed to come to Tasmania by the Tasmanian state branch of the Liberal Party. It is absolutely extraordinary that a minister of the Commonwealth is not allowed to come to a state.
Ms Henderson interjecting —
Ms HUSAR: You can laugh over there, Member for Corangamite; it was actually a member of the Liberal Party who said it. What value do the Liberal Party place on the need of Tasmanian farmers to have access to the minister for agriculture? Very little, it seems—politics before people. Will the minister come and speak with Tasmanian farmers, or is he banned from visiting the state as long as there are Liberal state and federal governments?
If that is so, then clearly there is a problem in the coalition's ranks. It may be Nationals by name, but clearly not by nature. On the flipside, the member for Hunter, together with the Country Caucus of the Labor Party, has visited my electorate, meeting with farmers and processors in recent months and spending the time speaking with them about their concerns.
Agriculture, forestry and fishing accounts for almost 10 per cent of Tasmania's GDP, which compares to around 2 per cent nationally. That is how important agriculture is to my state; it is the state's largest sector. Dairy, and the state's share of national milk production, has also grown steadily over the past 10 years. Agriculture, forestry and fishing represents 7.8 per cent of the workforce in the North-West of Tasmania, compared with 5.5 per cent for the state. And yet, the Minister for Agriculture is nowhere to be seen. I do not believe that he actually knows where Tasmania is; I never hear him mention it. Unsurprisingly, his Tasmanian Liberal Senate coalition colleagues have not joined with me to get him to Tasmania, and perhaps my earlier remarks explain why.
Tasmania unfortunately is not alone in lengthy waits to access the Farm Household Allowance scheme. Whether in South Australia, Victoria or other parts of the country, there are numerous stories of farmers forced to wait for more than three months for an allowance intended to help them and their families who are experiencing financial hardship. And in Tasmania there were the floods in June, as well as the severe and debilitating hits of fluctuating commodity prices and months of inaction from the federal government. Farming families were desperate and forced to rely on food vouchers or the help of others in the community to make ends meet. There were calls left, right and centre from Latrobe through to Circular Head for some help. This comes from a very proud bunch of people, who do avoid asking for help.
Even Victorian National Senator Bridget McKenzie has admitted that there are issues with the allowance application process and that it was not fit for purpose. The Senator wrote in an article in Farm Online:
I think there's some streamlining that can be done to ensure we have a system that is fit for purpose.
Senator McKenzie has also commented that the Farm Household Allowance application process is 'incredibly frustrating', citing examples during the roundtable discussions of farmers dealing with complex ICT systems.
I have had dairy farmers tell me of needing to obtain advice from accountants at a cost of hundreds of dollars, just to satisfy the application process. Here is another example of where this system fails: in my electorate a local agribusiness consultant was forced to withdraw his services to local farming families due to nonpayment by Centrelink. Mr Perez had been working for people in my electorate to process their claims for the Farm Household Allowance. He acted on behalf of Centrelink for two years, and for the period from August until towards the end of last year Centrelink had not paid him for his work. He had been authorised by Centrelink to be the case officer involved, but the processing delays left him with no choice other than to stop supporting local farmers. In fact, the government seems unable to cope with the simplest processing. Farmers already face lengthy delays in receiving the Farm Household Allowance and those delays are compounded by Centrelink consultants withdrawing their services through nonpayment. The incompetence of this minister and this government is absolutely disgraceful.
While it is welcoming to hear that the government is trying to address some of the shortfalls and issues with the Farm Household Allowance scheme, its processing of applications and ultimately getting help to farmers, I fear, may be too little too late for some. How many farmers have walked away because the system was too hard? How many hours, days and weeks of anguish have been caused by these delays? I am really not sure why it takes the government so long to admit it has got something incredibly wrong.
This was again demonstrated when the government attempted to push a 19 per cent backpacker tax through the Senate. On and on went the delays, with the government unwilling to accept responsibility for the disaster in Tasmania's horticulture industry. The government in its infinite wisdom was almost going to let the debate stall, leaving backpackers paying 32.5 per cent. However, in the dying days of the last sitting weeks of parliament, the government found an ally, the Greens.
There are several other examples of this government's inaction and of this minister's lazy approach to agriculture. Without going into too much detail, this government can easily be tagged as a total fizzer when it comes to supporting the agricultural sector and farmers. There are many failures at Centrelink, a problem mainly caused by the government's cuts. I acknowledge the work that Centrelink staff do in what must be extraordinary and unprecedented times. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people across the country are hit with accusations that they owe money, thanks to an ill-designed and incompetent system with little oversight. We hear examples of that all the time. It sounds to me like this government never learns by its mistakes.
Clearly the minister is not serious about his job or regional and rural communities or the agriculture sector, and certainly not household assistance for farmers. Earlier today the member for Hunter talked about a number of areas in which this minister has failed. For instance, he changed the Hansard around an issue in 2014. The secretary of his department obviously could not deal with the minister's behaviour and so he resigned. He wrote to the minister:
I am writing to advise you that I no longer have confidence in my capacity to resolve matters relating to integrity with you.
That was Paul Grimes, the previous secretary of the department. It is quite clear that this minister has lost any credibility in this portfolio area. The APVMA is another example that the member for Hunter pointed to of the clear failure of this minister and this government to get anything right.
While these changes are welcome, I simply hope that they are not too late for the farmers of this country.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (17:29): It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. What a disappointing contribution from the member for Braddon. Her slur on the minister for agriculture is absolutely disgraceful when you contrast the very important record that the coalition has in standing up for farmers. Look at what we have seen from those opposite. The dairy industry will never forget the carbon tax that imposed a penalty of, on average, $7,000 a year. Do Labor members understand how much hardship that caused the farmers? I have to say, being the member for Corangamite and having a very proud dairy industry right across Victoria, there has been no greater advocate for farmers than the coalition. We continue that proud record.
This bill is all about getting out into the community and listening. The bill amends the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and the farm household allowance by removing the ordinary waiting period and also the liquid assets waiting period so that there is better treatment of some assets of farmers. It seeks to streamline access to the farm household allowance for farmers and their partners experiencing financial hardship. This is before the parliament today because, in contrast to those opposite who have shown no regard for the absolute hardship that their policies have imposed on farmers, we went out into the community and we listened. These measures are an important part of the government's commitment to continuously improve delivery of the farm household allowance to better meet the needs of farmers who can benefit from this form of assistance.
It continues the incredibly important work that we have done for farmers across the country. Let me remind members that, when we came to office in 2013, the coalition inherited an empty cupboard on drought policy. Labor abolished the longstanding exceptional circumstances drought support policy. Labor cut the agriculture department's budget in half. Labor abolished Land and Water Australia and threatened the longstanding policy to match farmers' R&D levies. Farmers will well recall former agriculture minister Tony Burke asking the Productivity Commission to review the rural R&D system. In contrast, the coalition has confirmed that the farmers' R&D funds should be prioritised by the levy payers towards projects with the intention of boosting farm gate returns. We have strengthened the rural R&D system with a $190 million rural R&D for-profit initiative. We have established a $2.5 billion Farm Business Concessional Loans program over 10 years. This is providing concessional loans at a 2.47 per cent variable interest rate for 10 years, with interest-only terms for the first five years. One thousand, one hundred and sixty-nine farm businesses have successfully been approved for $622 million in concessional loans, and over 7,000 farmers and their partners have been granted the farm household allowance since 1 July 2014. Currently, there are some 4,800 farmers and their partners receiving FHA payments. We are incredibly proud of the way we are standing up for farmers.
I want to reflect on the work in terms of the dairy rescue package that was announced last year: a $555 million Dairy Recovery Concessional Loans package. We announced $2 million to establish a commodity milk price index; $900,000 for an additional nine rural financial counsellors in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales; $900,000 for Dairy Australia's Tactics for Tight Times program; the fast-tracking of the farm household allowance; and, of course, the very important work on the ground provided by the Department of Human Services.
I do have to say that, as part of the listening in dairy communities throughout Australia and particularly, of course, in Victoria, being a very important dairy region, we, as members of the government, have been very active in getting out, listening and calling for action. I have not just been a long-term advocate for the dairy industry but have also spoken out very strongly on the conduct of both Murray-Goulburn and Fonterra in imposing clawback payments on farmers last year. It was an absolute disgrace. In May, I called for an ACCC inquiry into the dairy industry. I held a large meeting of dairy farmers in Alvie. I also called on Murray-Goulburn and Fonterra to explain to the Prime Minister when they met him why they imposed those clawback payments. In my view, it amounted to corporate thuggery. There is no doubt that these processes misled dairy farmers and the market about profit projections. I am very pleased that the ACCC is not just conducting a review of the industry but also investigating the conduct of Murray-Goulburn.
The minister for agriculture, the member for New England, has been a wonderful advocate for farmers. I have to reflect on this again: the contribution of the member for Braddon was really disappointing. There is no greater fighter for farmers on our side than the member for New England. The member for New England has been a very, very strong voice. In contrast to the member for Hunter—who barely ever gets up in question time and asks the member for New England a question about farming, which is pretty disappointing—we have, in our minister for agriculture, an incredibly strong voice.
Let us just reflect on some of the other ways in which we have stood up for farmers. There were the three free trade agreements—landmark free trade agreements—which opened up new markets in South Korea, Japan and China. These agreements are not just important for all businesses but are particularly important for the likes of Bulla dairy in my electorate, which has opened up new markets, with new confidence, in places like China. Over the last few days, we have just improved our trade deal with Indonesia during President Widodo's visit, and there was a commitment to increase our trade connections, and now there have been important announcements made to support farmers in the way in which we trade with this very important partner, Indonesia.
I have mentioned the issue of the carbon tax, and it seems that Labor has not learnt its lesson. It imposed, on average, a carbon tax on dairy farmers which caused an enormous burden on their business—electricity, of course, being a very significant input into the business of dairy farmers. But Labor has not learnt its lesson. We now see this 50 per cent renewable energy target which, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, would cost $48 billion—the equivalent of $2,000 for every Australian. Just imagine what that is going to do to our farmers, particularly to our dairy farmers. We are already seeing a very significant increase in electricity prices, including because of Hazelwood's closure, and, unlike members opposite, we are absolutely determined to do everything we can for energy security and for the security of our farmers.
But it does not stop there. One of the hallmark coalition policies is our commitment to mobile communications. This is incredibly important for all businesses, all families and all young people living in rural and regional Australia, but particularly for our farmers. Again, what a shame on Labor that not one cent was invested in mobile phone communications, in fixing those black spots. Mobile communications are so critical for our farmers.
In Corangamite, we have announced funding for 18 new base stations. Carlisle River will be the very first tower to be turned on, and hopefully more towers will be turned on very, very soon. In the middle of the Otways, a beautiful, magnificent dairy farming area, the people of Carlisle River now have a new base station. For the first time, by way of mobile, they are connected to the outside world. So we are really, really proud of our commitment to better mobile communications.
Another very significant investment in rural and regional Australia is the rollout of the NBN. The NBN is being rolled out in spades across my electorate and across the country. It was an utter failure when Labor ran the NBN. We now have the Sky Muster connected. Over 3½ thousand premises are eligible for service in Corangamite, and there are fixed wireless facilities across many parts of my electorate that previously did not have a voice under the Labor Party. Places like Barongarook, Beeac, Beech Forest, Cape Clear, Cororooke, Cressy East, Dereel, Forrest and Gellibrand—all of these communities across Corangamite and communities right across Australia are being connected to the NBN because we care about people living in the country, we care about their businesses and we care about farmers.
There is no doubt that our dairy farmers have had it very, very tough. There is no doubt that many have faced very, very difficult times. And there is no doubt that some of these factors are, of course, beyond the control of any particular person or organisation. But there are many, many other areas, in terms of the financial hardship placed on farmers, where dramatic action was required, and we did act, and we are very, very proud of the dairy crisis package that we put into place. I say again, and I say very loudly in this parliament: we will not tolerate the likes of Murray Goulburn and Fonterra doing what they did to our farmers. The retrospective clawbacks—
Mr Katter: What are you going to do about it?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Order! The member for Kennedy, I see, is on the speakers list; he will have his turn.
Ms HENDERSON: I will take the member for Kennedy's interjection. He asks: what are we going to do about it? Well, I say that we actually already have very strong laws under Australian competition law, to prevent and prohibit misleading or deceptive conduct. I am very pleased to learn that the ACCC is investigating what I say are misleading claims that were made by Murray Goulburn. They misled farmers. They misled the market. And I am extremely pleased to learn that, not only is there an inquiry into the dairy industry across the board, looking at a whole range of issues, but also the ACCC is specifically investigating the conduct of Murray Goulburn and the way in which it clawed back that money from farmers, because it was an absolute disgrace. So I am very hopeful that this actually is a contravention of our law. We have very strong laws in this country to prohibit companies from misleading and deceiving; we have very strong laws to prevent that, whether it is farmers or consumers or small businesses being ripped off because of the deceptive conduct of others. And I am very hopeful that the ACCC will find that Murray Goulburn, at the very least, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, and my view is that there should be penalties applied to Murray Goulburn whereby Murray Goulburn is required to pay back the money that they improperly took from our farmers. I am very proud to stand up for our farmers. I commend this bill to the House. And we will keep on fighting for our wonderful farmers.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:44): The member for Corangamite can be excused, as she has not been here a long time. If she had been here she would have witnessed the complete destruction of the wool industry caused by the deregulation by Mr Keating. Since the Liberals are the great advocates of deregulation, they are probably upset because they were not there to do it. But these are the wonders of the free trade that you talk about, Member for Corangamite. We had 176 million head of sheep and we have seen all bar 30 per cent of them vanish after you deregulated the wool industry. You participated in it; you are up to your eyeballs in it. The next industry to be deregulated was the maize industry. We do not have a maize industry. In the centre of my electorate, the Atherton Tableland, the symbol for the shire council are the silos. Well, they are not there anymore. There is no maize industry anymore. If you go up the road, there is the Mareeba City Council, the second biggest city in my electorate. The symbol for their shire is the tobacco leaf. You deregulated the tobacco industry—nothing to do with people not smoking—and it is gone. You then deregulated the sugar industry and we are closing a sugar mill every two years. So these are your great free trade agreements.
I represent the great industries of Australia. I do not represent the grain industry, but I represent the others. I do not represent wool anymore, because there isn't any wool in the northern half of Queensland. The presidents of the wool council and the wool board in Australia both came from the Kennedy electorate. We were the heartland of the wool industry. I doubt whether there are 5,000 sheep left in the Kennedy electorate out of maybe one million at one stage—it may have been five million at one stage. You can sheet home the destruction of those industries to the deregulation policies of the Liberal and Australian Labor Party.
Is the member for Corangamite so naive as to believe that you are going to get a decent amount of money for your milk when there are only two buyers of milk in Australia—Woolworths and Coles. If you are right, I will sue the University of Queensland for what they taught me in economics when I was there—because, when you have two buyers, that is called oligopoly, and you are going to get screwed to death. That is exactly what happened to the dairy industry of Australia. It was destroyed by the deregulators, who left us to the tender mercies of the only two buyers of food in this country—Woolworths and Coles. And who can blame them? They are not there to be Santa Claus; they are there to maximise profits. If they can pay us 42c a litre, when the day before deregulation we were getting 59c a litre, where are all your laws? 'Oh, we have great laws protecting us in this country.' Well, where are they when we can be taken in one day from 59c a litre down to 42c a litre?
The member for Corangamite represents the dairy industry. Quite frankly, it is to the shame of the people of Victoria that they are still electing LNP members to this place. But they are not, of course, because one of the biggest electorates in Victoria now belongs to the centrist parties. One of the biggest electorates in Queensland now belongs to centrist parties. How many more are you going to lose before you wake up to yourself, I do not know. But you have lost three to the crossbenches now. We held four at one period of time and we hold three at the present moment. I do not doubt for a moment that, in three years time, we will hold six or seven seats on the crossbenches.
Why are they leaving you? Thirty per cent of the Australian population is saying, 'We hate you and we're not going to vote for you in the next election.' But neither side of this House has the slightest interest in changing direction. Are they going to stop Woolworths and Coles? Are they going to reintroduce arbitration for the wool industry, the sugar industry or any of these great giant Australian industries? No, of course they are not. They are wedded and in love with their ideology. They do not listen to the people in pain. They believe in their 'towering ideological purity'.
I failed my first exam ever in economics—it was the first exam I had ever failed in my life—and I said to Mr Gunton, 'I thought it was a good paper.' He said, 'It was, Katter,' and I said, 'Well, I would hate to see if I did a bad one.' I had got an F for it. He said, 'No, it was a brilliant paper. Supply and demand determine price, but only in the presence of the 23 factors that you need for supply and demand to determine price'—the first one being an infinite number of buyers and sellers and freedom of movement from the buyer to the seller. We have two buyers in the wool industry and we still have 6,000 or 7,000 sellers—and similarly in the dairy industry.
The president of our party is a dairy farmer—one of the biggest dairy farmers in Queensland—from the Gympie area. They had about 600 farmers and they now have about 60. I represent probably the most concentrated and biggest area in Australia, the Atherton Tablelands—where it is green all year round and has a temperate climate all year round. We had 240 farmers before they started the move towards deregulation and we now have 36 farmers. Would to heaven Mr Gunton had taught some of our lawyers in here, or if their mummies and daddies had had them play Monopoly, and then you would know that, when you have a monopoly in a certain industry you can charge six or seven times what you charged before. The problem is that they did law and not economics or they had numbskulls for lecturers and their mummies and their daddies never had them play monopoly.
As I understand it, this debate on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 is about the farm support scheme. It is a great tragedy that we have to have such a scheme. I want to single out the people that I believe were responsible for the scheme. Johnny Gambino is the president of the rural action council in Mareeba and a great man in every sense of the word. He was one of the three or four pioneers that went into large-scale mango farming. Until he and two or three others came along, it was just a backyard occupation where you would put a few hundred mango trees in and get a bit of pocket money for your kids at Christmas time. I most certainly did that; we had a small orchard. When John Gambino came along, they started putting in 1,000 to 3,000 trees, and he was one of the three, or maybe four, pioneers of that industry. He started rural action to fight off the free market coming in with water in the region, and they fought a terrific fight. They have been a great band of fighters and leaders of rural action throughout Australia, not just in their own area.
They developed what was called the Emerald Creek Declaration. One of the clauses in the Emerald Creek Declaration said that household sustenance payments must be made where a farmer's income does not meet welfare payment levels. I did not think we could ever get that, and I must single out Bernie O'Shea, the secretary of the committee. He said, 'We are determined to get it.' There were other changes that they wanted which I will not go into today, but the Emerald Creek Declaration is a very wonderful document. Bernie O'Shea built one of our major facilities in the city of Mareeba. We did not have any sophisticated dining places to go to and he and a few others built the Rugby League club in Mareeba. It set a standard, and there are a number of other places in town now. There are a number of very nice places where you can go out for dinner in Mareeba, and we have him to thank for that. More importantly, he organised the demonstrations in which John Howard very kindly came over to us demonstrators and said, 'Want do you want?' They said, 'If you're going to deregulate us, Mr Prime Minister, at the very least give us a package the same as the dairy farmers got.' He said, 'We can have a look at that.' To the shame of the National Party, their leader, Mark Vaile, came up to the same group and said, 'What do you want?' We said the same thing and he said to Bernie O'Shea, 'Oh, no, Bernie, we believe in free markets,' and he walked off. The once great National Party ran this country after the war. The great Jack McEwen, when asked, 'Is it true that the Country Party wagged the Liberal dog?' said, 'Yes'—that is all he said. That tells you an awful lot about that very great Australian.
I thank John Howard for the $90 million package that we secured that day, standing out there in the hot sun. Instead of taking an antagonistic attitude, it was an enlightened attitude by the Prime Minister. I wish he was enlightened enough—because I like the man and respect him—to see that, when you deregulate an industry, you place those people at the mercies of the market forces, and the market forces are controlled by very few people. In the wool industry, throughout most of my lifetime probably six traders have accounted for 70 or 80 per cent of the marketplace. So, if you want to sell on the open market, you will be taken to the cleaners on a magnificent scale. Wool had carried this country for 100 years. In the year when Mr Keating, that great genius, the world's greatest Treasurer—everyone laughs because it is a joke—decided to deregulate the wool industry, it was bigger than coal. It was the major export earning item for this country. How or why you would fool around with a success story of that magnitude and destroy your country's mainstay economic earner is beyond my comprehension. That anyone could ever say a favourable word about that man is, again, beyond my comprehension. He destroyed the mainstay of the economy of this nation. Seventy-two per cent of our sheep herd has gone. Within three years, the price had dropped 30 or 40 per cent. The industry was no longer viable. He completely destroyed it. For 20 years, under the wool scheme we had had a solid prosperity and a solid growth—not a spectacular growth. It was not a big growth; it was a very small growth of about 2½ per cent in sheep numbers each year.
That is what we want. We do not want ups and downs. We cannot ride the ups and downs because you sold all the banks—the reconstruction banks, the Commonwealth Development Bank, the ag bank, the AIDC, the primary industries bank. You sold them all to QIDC in Queensland. Between the LNP mainly, in this case, but the ALP as well, you sold all the banks, so we cannot ride the rollercoaster anymore. We got interest rates of 2½ per cent when we had to ride the down rollercoaster. When we rode the up rollercoaster, it did not go very high because tax took it off us. The up rollercoaster was always truncated; the down was increased by the banks putting penalty rates upon us. So the down cycle was always exaggerated and the up cycle was always truncated. Under the enlightened leadership for 100 years in this country, we had reconstruction banks. They served other purposes. The Commonwealth Development Bank served many other purposes, but one of its many purposes was as a reconstruction board. We see a number of dreadful calamities when people decide that they do not want to be in this world anymore, particularly in my own industry, the cattle industry of North Queensland, and decide to end it all. That would not have occurred if we had had a reconstruction board.
I name the people responsible for this: Wayne Swan, whom I pay very great tribute to; Johnny Gambino, the president; Bernie O'Shea, the secretary; Scotty Dixon, one of the greatest fighters I have ever run into; Makse Shroij, the solidest bloke that you would ever meet in a day's ride; Joe Moro, a great bloke; Vincie Mete; Ned Bruschetto; Evan McGrath; Emidio 'Horse' Nicolosi; Peter Henderson; and Johnny Myrteza. These are the blokes who put it up. They fought for us and we thank very much Wayne Swan for delivering it to us. When we go down, at least we can buy some food to feed our families with. We thank very much the people responsible.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:00): I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. From the outset, I would like to recognise the work of the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister for agriculture in his efforts to provide a fairer system of assistance for Australian farmers by way of this household allowance payment. The farm household allowance is a payment to help farmers and their families who are doing it tough. It is a helping hand—no more, no less. In my electorate of Gippsland, there would not be a farmer who hopes they ever have to receive this payment. They get into farming to make a profit through their hard work, through their ingenuity and through their determination and resilience. They expect to turn their land into profit, and they hope they never have to receive farm household assistance.
More broadly, farming is one of the mainstay industries in Gippsland. It has been part of our traditional strength. The diversity of our farming sector has been critical to the prosperity of my region, and it is certainly going to play an important role in the future. It is in this vein that I would like to reflect for a moment on the Gippsland dairy sector. Obviously, it has a very strong history, and I would like to note for the record that it has a very strong future as well. In saying that, the member for Wannon is joining me in the chamber. We both claim to have Australia's most important dairy production region. We had an argument about it once, and then we found out that we actually both have 23 per cent of Australia's dairy production, so no-one won the argument! Opposite me is the member for Eden-Monaro, who is trying to lay claim to the title because of the Bega Valley.
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
Mr CHESTER: I will accept his interjection. The Bega Valley is another productive dairy region, but not verging on the quantity of production from the electorate of Wannon or Gippsland. But it has been a tough time for dairy farmers across Australia, whether they be in the Bega Valley, in the Western District or in Gippsland. The retrospective cut in milk prices was devastating for families in my community. It created an enormous amount of uncertainty, and it led to a great deal of unrest, both social and economic, in Gippsland as people tried to work their way through the difficult circumstances they were faced with. I appreciate the feedback that I received from farmers in my community—feedback that I took directly to the minister. When Senator McKenzie visited my region, when she came to Morwell, it was an opportunity for farmers to attend that forum and provide direct feedback to her. They were able to point out some of the issues in relation to the farm household allowance system and the way it was applied and the complexity of how it was applied to farmers right across Australia.
I would like to reflect for a moment on the opportunities that still present themselves for the dairy sector in Gippsland. We have an extraordinary opportunity to capitalise on our fertile soils, on our reliable water supplies throughout the Macalister Irrigation District and on the presence of Murray Goulburn in Maffra in my electorate, one of those plants that is critical to the future success of the Gippsland region. In that same vein, I acknowledge the great diversity of the Gippsland agricultural sector, whether it be beef production, wool and lamb production or horticulture in all its forms around the Mitchell River and the Macalister River flats near Sale.
One of the things that the farming sector across Gippsland shares is a need for improved connectivity. Connectivity is a word that we are going to hear a lot more about in regional Australia in the years ahead as we talk about the way we link our regions, whether it is through our road and rail links or our telecommunication links. It is about connectivity across our communities and connectivity into markets, between our major regional towns and into our capital cities. It is going to be critical for us to capitalise on the free trade agreements that this government has been able to negotiate with important Asian markets to our north. We need the opportunity to get our products to market in the most efficient way possible.
We also need to see investment in our water infrastructure as we look to grow our capacity to produce the food that those Asian markets are certainly searching for. So I am very pleased that in the last election campaign we were able to make some very significant announcements in Gippsland which will not only add to the connectivity of my region and improve the efficiency of the agricultural sector but also provide more opportunities for Gippslanders to get out, do their work and travel throughout the community in a safe way.
In that vein, one of the best announcements during the campaign was one in relation to road funding. We will see record spending on roads in Gippsland as a direct result of our negotiation with the Victorian state government. There will be $345 million contributed by the federal government to the program. It will be matched by the Victorian state government. That will mean roads in Gippsland, roads in the seat of Wannon and roads right throughout regional Victoria will benefit. In my electorate, the Great Alpine Road linking Bairnsdale and Bruthen through the Tambo Valley to towns like Ensay, Swifts Creek, Omeo and Benambra, will see major improvements. We have allocated money for that, which will improve safety on an important link. It is important from an agriculture perspective, but it also opens up our community to tourism opportunities. On that point, when we talk about the agricultural sector, we need to recognise the real opportunities for agri-tourism as more and more of our farming sector are seeing opportunities to diversify their income base and reach out into tourism opportunities in regional Australia.
Another major project announced during the campaign which will improve connectivity for the agricultural sector is the upgrades to the Princes Highway East. This is a section of road which is not on the national network, but I was able to secure $25 million of federal funding, to be matched by the state government, on this important link between Gippsland and the seat of Eden-Monaro. The member for Eden-Monaro, who is in the chamber, is also a strong supporter of improving this link between our two communities. It will improve safety on this stretch of road which not only is an important tourism link but also is important for moving our products to and from Melbourne and Sydney, and into the Canberra market as well. Funding in the order of $50 million will be spent on that road in the years ahead.
Additional funding of $5 million each from the state and federal governments will go on the Monaro Highway, another important transport link from Canberra to Bombala and Cooma. These are all important examples of how we need to improve the connectivity of our region to capitalise on the free trade agreements, to get our products to market as quickly and as efficiently as we possibly can and to take our quality Gippsland products to the world.
I mentioned the importance of water infrastructure. We are seeing in relation to the dairy industry in particular the MID 2030 plan. I was very pleased to welcome the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to my community where he made the very important announcement that the federal government will provide $20 million to invest in water security for the MID, the Macalister irrigation district. We have a comparatively small but very reliable dam. It fills and spills very quickly. We have ageing infrastructure attached to that dam at Glenmaggie. Maximising the use of the existing water entitlements through improved channel technology, working with the dairy farmers and the horticultural sector on research to help them reduce their nutrient use and reduce the amount of run-off into the streams and flowing through to the Gippsland Lakes and water re-use facilities on individual farms—all of these things are examples of the farming sector being prepared to work with the best researchers to understand how technology can be applied to their farms, how it can reduce their costs, how they can adapt it to their situation and help them become more productive and also better custodians of the land they farm on and better custodians of the environment. I am very proud of the role my farmers play in the community not just in producing world-class food but also as custodians of the land they work and have worked for generations.
In the same vein, I would like to mention another water project which has great potential for Gippsland at the Lindenow flats on the Mitchell River. That is a very fertile horticultural area and one where further investment in water security would allow for greater growth and opportunities for the farms that are already there but also open up new land to irrigate agriculture. I am very keen to work with the landowners and the state government on projects that can see us improve the reliability of supply for those irrigators so that they can continue to service right up and down the east coast of Australia as they do today. That is an important project and one which unfortunately has stagnated under the current state government in Victoria. But I remain hopeful that they will see the opportunities to work with the farming sector and invest in this great industry in Gippsland.
Just returning more specifically to the bill before the House, it is important to note that farmers will be eligible for this payment if they contribute a significant part of their labour and capital to their farm enterprise and if they meet an income and asset test and comply with initial obligation requirements. If they are found eligible, farmers can then access up to three years of income support. As I said at the outset, no farmer in Gippsland and no farmer in Australia wants to get themselves into a position where they have to rely on farm household support, but it is important to have that safety net there and that helping hand in tough times. This legislation is ensuring the delivery is more efficient and addresses the needs of farmers if they experience those tough times. The changes include the fact that the ordinary waiting period will be waived and also the liquid assets waiting periods will be removed. This will mean that unnecessary waiting periods for access to the farm household allowance will no longer apply to farmers who apply for this form of assistance.
The farm household allowance has been a successful measure in assisting farmers who are experiencing economic hardship. Over 7,000 farmers and their partners have been provided with access to the farm household allowance, and more than 4,700 around Australia are currently receiving the allowance. The government—and I again commend the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and also my colleague in the Senate Bridget McKenzie—has listened to the concerns expressed and raised within rural communities over the past 12 months about the lengthy and complex application process and has taken steps to address these concerns. As a part of this process, there was extensive negotiation with individual farmers but also with key agricultural stakeholders, including the National Farmers' Federation, Australian Dairy Farmers and United Dairyfarmers of Victoria. They advised the government about the delivery of this household allowance. I thank them for the manner in which they engaged with the government in this regard.
As a member of the Nationals—and I note the presence in the chamber of another member of the Nationals, the member for Riverina, Michael McCormack—I know we are very keen to be delivering policies that assist communities right around regional Australia to have safe, stronger, better regional communities that allow everyone the chance to get ahead. We are working on a daily basis with our communities to get a fair share of government investment in the key infrastructure we need to connect our rural and regional communities. We understand the importance of providing opportunities, particularly opportunities for young people in those regional communities. These are people who choose to live outside our capital cities and people who go to work every day on the land and provide the food and fibre that we need in our country towns and in our cities. They are the unsung champions and heroes of our nation. We base a lot of our national culture around those people—the farming communities living in those rural and remote areas of the nation. They do not ask for much, but they do expect a fair go and a fair share. I am very proud to be part of a government which is committed to delivering that fair go and fair share for regional Australia.
We want to invest in those regional communities. We want to see more people having the opportunity to live outside our capital cities, whether that be in my seat of Gippsland or in the seats of Wannon, Eden-Monaro or Riverina. We understand that the people who have been brought up in those rural and regional towns want to see a future in those communities for their children. They want to see governments, whether they be at a local, state or federal level, that are investing in the services and infrastructure they need. We as members of this place have this rare opportunity to stand up and advocate on their behalf. I am very proud to be part of a party that is determined to deliver policies that achieve those outcomes for rural and regional people. In that spirit, I commend the bill to the House and congratulate the minister again for the work he is doing in standing up for rural and regional communities.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (18:13): I rise to speak on the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 and add to the contributions from many of my colleagues, including the member for Gippsland, who just spoke, and the members for Murray, Mallee, Calare and others. It is an important bill. It seeks to change the definition of 'assets' so that farmers who would otherwise have been ineligible for the farm household allowance support are now able to access it. That is so important for the farmers I represent. It is so important for the farmers that the member for Gippsland represents as well as those salt-of-the-earth cockies who the member for Eden-Monaro, my neighbouring colleague, represents and those who the minister at the table represents in that fine Victorian seat of Wannon.
As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 will amend the Farm Household Support Act 2014 to ensure that recipients of farm household allowance are not required to serve an ordinary waiting period or liquid assets waiting period before they can begin receiving the FHA. It also clarifies the asset test treatment of certain assets necessary for the operation of the farm enterprise. As the member for Gippsland just enunciated, we want to give farmers a hand up, not a handout. And that is what farmers want, as well. Those people who continue to produce food and fibre are doing it very well. Even in times of drought, they act for and on our behalf, and keep this nation fed and clothed. Full marks to them.
The FHA program gives farmers and their partners a maximum of three years' income support to meet basic household needs while they make decisions about the future of their farm business and take action to improve their circumstances. It is tough. Farming is very tough. And I would know. My father was a farmer. His father before him was and, indeed, so was his before him. All farmed in the Junee-Marrar areas of the Riverina. I represent a large part of New South Wales. It covers not just the Riverina but also now the Central West—those great areas of Parkes, Forbes and Cowra. They are great wheatgrowing areas, and great cattle- and sheep-producing areas. I am not unfamiliar with the difficulties faced by farmers and the despair they find themselves in during difficult times. That could be, as I mentioned before, times of drought. It could be times of floods. Certainly, Forbes suffered from some dreadful floods in recent months. As well as pestilence, fires, floods—all those things really greatly affect the farmer income. I know that during those times the farmers certainly need every bit of help. As I said, farmers work the land. They care for their animals. They put food on our tables. It is vital that the government provide support and assistance to help those out who look after and provide for us. I am the first to rebuke anyone who criticises farmers for complaining about the lack of rain, the price of grain or for choosing to live where they do, often under very dire and very trying circumstances.
Farmers are not guaranteed a fixed income. They are price takers not price makers. At the moment, prices are good. I commend the seasons for that. The seasons have been kind to us in recent years. But I also absolutely pay credit to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Nationals, for the work that he has done in setting the policy parameters and policy settings to ensure that farmers have the very best opportunity. Certainly, with this legislation, as well, I pay credit to Senator Anne Ruston for her work and the chair of the coalition's backbench committee, indeed, the member for Barker. I was in the member for Barker's electorate just last week, in fact, on my small business roadshow. I took the chance to talk to many of his small business owners, including farmers. Not everybody always recognises that farmers are small businesses, but they are. I know the hard work that the member for Barker is putting into his electorate to make sure that farmers have a voice in this place, that farmers get the very best representation and that the work they do does not go unrecognised in the South Australian electorate that he represents so very fiercely and so very well.
There are many impacts by so many factors on farmers and their way of life, whether that be changes to market forces, the increase in the value of the dollar, the drops in the price of wool, grain, livestock and land. Fortunately, we have seen the good times in recent times. That is not so much for the price of wheat at the moment. It would be better if it were a lot higher. But the effects to farmers and their families is detrimental. And that is why this legislation is so important.
I have always valued the principle of giving someone a hand up rather than a handout, whether this be for the socially disadvantaged, those lacking in skills and knowledge or those struggling financially. It also applies to farmers. Farmers are not asking the government to give them a welfare handout—they are not—but a hand up so to: help them out and support them with their basic household needs while they get their affairs in order in those tough times—as I mentioned before, fires, floods and droughts, and all those sorts of things; to make the necessary business decisions that they need to in order to get back on their feet; and to, essentially, improve their long-term financial viability situation.
The farm household allowance is delivered by the Department of Human Services. I commend the minister for the work that he has done as well in this regard. It is paid fortnightly at a rate equivalent to Newstart allowance or youth allowance for those under 22 years. A healthcare card is provided to recipients. Support is also provided through a dedicated case manager—and they are so important—to help recipients assess their situation and develop a plan for the future. I know that with this particular bill the coalition has fully consulted with key stakeholders—with, as the member for Gippsland mentioned before, the National Farmers' Federation and others. I know that the chairman, Fiona Simson, is fully cognisant of what this bill entails.
These amendments to the Farm Household Support Act have been introduced to clarify the definition of farm assets used in the running of farm businesses—they are complicated and complex matters—such as water assets and shares in a farming cooperative when assessing eligibility. The amendments address the issue of such assets necessary for the operation of the farm enterprise, falling within the definition of non-farm assets, which has stricter asset limits and which can prevent some of the rightfully eligible farm businesses from receiving payments. Changing the definition of 'assets' means more farm businesses in my electorate of Riverina and the Central West will be eligible to receive assistance, with farm assets such water being treated in the same vein as other assets needed to run a farm business, including land and machinery.
Before the coalition introduced the farm household allowance in 2014 there was no support payment generally available to farmers in hardship outside of the very worthwhile, very good and very necessary exceptional circumstances drought program. It was abolished by the former Labor administration, which gave farmers hard times. It left farmers on their own.
More than 7,000 claims have been granted nationally since the FHA was introduced, giving farmers access to one-on-one case support—I mentioned how crucially important that is—activity supplements and income support. I am very pleased to stand here in support of this amendment. I am very glad it will ensure that recipients of the farm household allowance are not required, once assessed as eligible, to serve a liquid assets waiting period before they can start to receive the farm household allowance. I am hopeful, in fact I am confident, that this amendment will make things easier for farmers and their families in my electorate, whether they are in Peak Hill or Mangoplah, West Wyalong or Young. It is important that we as a government continue to stand up for the regions and those who live and work in them.
I would like to put on record some of the statistics so far. As I mentioned, there have been more than 7,000 claims. In fact, as at 24 February 7,133 farmers and partners received grants. The current number of people receiving payments at the same date is 4,794 farmers and partners. Total payments made in this period, covering 1 March 2014 to 31 January this year, including the interim farm household allowance, is $162.3 million. I would argue that that is an investment. It is an investment in our future and our farmers, and therefore it is an investment in our regions. The amount of support over three years is up to $74,474.40 for a couple and up to $41,238.60 for a single.
These measures are part of the government's commitment to continuously improve delivery of the FHA to better meet the needs of farmers who can benefit from this form of assistance. Farmers can know with confidence that this coalition government recognises their work and their importance and acknowledges what they do on behalf of this nation. The new concessional loan scheme supports farm businesses dealing with and recovering from drought. We put that in place.
The agricultural white paper is a $4 billion investment in our farmers. We are helping farm businesses to achieve better farm gate returns. We so often hear our policies mocked and knocked by those opposite in question time. When the member for New England, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, when he gets up and extols the virtues and importance of increased, record prices of grain, beef, cotton and all the other commodities that he talks about so often in question time, I wish sometimes that those opposite, particularly those from the city electorates—I know the member for Eden-Monaro gets it—but particularly some of those opposite from city seats whose RM Williams boots, if indeed they ever wear them, have never seen a bit of farm dust or bulldust. They talk bit about it sometimes, but their boots have never seen it. They need to sometimes get out of the bubble that is this place and their city electorates and understand and recognise the important role our farmers play and give the agriculture minister a bit more credit when he gets to his feet and extols the virtues of the record prices that have been achieved in recent times. I appreciate that the member opposite, the member for Eden-Monaro, is nodding his head. He understands and appreciates it too.
Growing markets—the fact that we have been able to broker trade agreements with Japan, South Korea and China is so critically important. I know that the Prime Minister met the Indonesian President on the weekend. Hopefully, through the trade minister, we will be able to broker a deal with our biggest neighbour very soon. I know that the member for Moncrieff is also in very detailed talks with India at the moment. That is ongoing and that is fantastic. Growing markets enable us to be able to sell our goods and our farm products even further afield.
The member for Gippsland, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, spoke about the importance of the $50 billion rollout of infrastructure. That is a record amount spent by the Liberal National coalition government, and not just in city areas—also in regional electorates. It is so important to get those road networks and the inland rail built and all those things that are going to be able to get our farmers produce to markets quicker to help farmers.
We are removing technical barriers to trade. We are supporting innovative agriculture. I know the Prime Minister talks often about innovation, but there is no better area to talk about innovation than in farming. Our farmers are the most innovative in the world. They are the very best in the world at their craft. They always have been, they are at the moment and they always will be. We are providing a better tax system for farmers. I am glad that the instant asset write-off is in. As the small business minister I know how important that is. On skills and labour, I am glad we got the backpacker tax situation sorted. That was important. The WET rebate was important. We certainly helped the Australian Grape and Wine Authority promoting Australian wine overseas. They produce the finest wine in parts of the Riverina and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area that I once represented very proudly.
Getting back to this important bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017 is important. It gives help to those salt-of-the-earth people who we know, we love, we respect and we want to continue for them to do what they do for our outstanding country. We understand and acknowledge the important contribution they make, and this bill does just that.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (18:28): I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on this important bill, the Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017. Before I go to the substance of my contribution and final remarks on this bill, I would like to reflect on a saying, which is that empty vessels make the most noise. In this House there is probably no greater example of that than the member for Bendigo. As much as it pains me to have to do so, I will have to correct the record with regard to some claims made by the member for Bendigo.
The member for Bendigo made assertions that the Bendigo office of the Rural Financial Counselling Service was shut because they complained about the introduction of the farm household allowance. The member for Bendigo is wrong and needs to be corrected. The government undertook a public tender process for the delivery of our RFCS services over the next four years, commencing on 1 April 2016. The outcome of that process was the Sunraysia or Victoria North West RFCS was awarded the contract to deliver this service in the Bendigo area. There were no disruptions to this important service. Our farmers and our rural communities still continue to benefit from the services that are provided. In fact, the member may wish to visit 62b Breen Street in Bendigo to familiarise herself with her local RFCS provider.
Returning to the substance of the bill. This bill demonstrates the government's responsiveness to the needs of the farm community and rural and regional Australia, and demonstrates its willingness to streamline the assessment of the farm household allowance applications where appropriate and possible. The circumstances of farmers and their partners are unique. It is not always possible for farmers experiencing hardship to draw down on their assets to support themselves given the illiquid nature of farm assets and their day-to-day operational requirements. The farm household allowance program provides up to three years of income support to eligible farmers and their partners while they take steps to improve their long-term financial situation. As part of the program, recipients are supported to undertake a farm financial assessment, and they have access to $1,500 in funding to do so, and a financial improvement agreement, or FIA, which is a plan to work towards improving their self-reliance. Under the FIA, a recipient can access an activity supplement of up to $4,000—$3,000 over three years and an additional $1,000 in the final year of payment—to pay for eligible professional support, advice or training.
Support is also provided through dedicated farm household case officers, who work with recipients to assess their individual situation and identify activities to improve their long-term situation. While on payment, farmers and their partners also have access to a healthcare card, pharmaceutical allowance, rental assistance, telephone allowance, the energy supplement and the remote area allowance. Recipients must also identify objectives and undertake activities designed to move them forward to a more financially sustainable future. If it is not possible for recipients to achieve financial sustainability, notwithstanding the support offered through the program, it also provides support for recipients to consider an alternative in employment or transitioning away from farming with dignity, however difficult that decision may be.
Unlike previous schemes requiring drought conditions to trigger, farmers experiencing hardship in a range of circumstances are able to access the farm household allowance program. The government has introduced a number of other measures to specifically assist those experiencing drought conditions. For example, the recently opened drought assistance concessional loan scheme provides loans aiming to assist drought affected farm businesses manage and recover from drought with an aim to return them to viability in the long term. Loans of up to 50 per cent of eligible farm business debt up to a maximum of $1 million are available, and that is a significant amount of assistance.
The bill continues the improvement of the farm household allowance program. By improving the legislation, farm household allowance applicants and recipients will benefit because we are clarifying the eligibility test to apply for this support and removing unnecessary waiting periods. Importantly, the bill clarifies the treatment of assets necessary for the operation of the farm enterprise under the act and includes them within the farm assets test. It removes the requirement for successful farm household allowance recipients to serve an ordinary waiting period or a liquid assets waiting period before they receive payment.
The bill addresses the community concerns relating to the time taken to process applications for the farm household allowance and the treatment of water assets and shares in marketing cooperatives as non-farm assets rather than as farm assets necessary for the operation of the farm enterprise. Simultaneously, my colleague Minister Tudge has announced that the Department of Human Services has commenced an eight-week pilot whereby a new dedicated team within DHS manages new farm household allowance applications, increases outbound telephone contact with applicants to assist them through the application process, and provides streamlined processes to aim to finalise simple cases within four weeks and complex cases within six weeks. There will be minimal cost to the government. The bill streamlines government administration and improves government efficiency. There will be no cost generated to the government in removing the requirement of successful applicants to serve an ordinary waiting period or liquid assets waiting period.
I thank the members for their contributions to this debate in the House. I would also like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the huge amount of effort that he has put in to deliver improvements to this program so that they better meet the needs of those on the land who are struggling. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (18:36): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Bourke Street Fund) Bill 2017
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 2) Bill 2016
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account Bill 2016
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
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 because:
1. the National Disability Insurance Scheme was fully funded when Labor left office;
2. this bill is nothing more than an attempt by the Government to use the National Disability Insurance Scheme to justify further cruel cuts to the most vulnerable in our community; and
3. this Bill has unnecessarily caused significant concern in the disability community and threatened community confidence in the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme - a scheme that Labor created and which will help hundreds of thousands of people with a disability when fully rolled out."
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (18:37): In speaking on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account Bill 2016, I say from the outset I support and endorse the remarks of the member for Jagajaga when she spoke on this bill on 15 February and I speak in support of the amendments that she moved on the day.
For the past four years since this government has been in government and indeed even before that, it was clear to me that the government was never truly committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It publicly said it was but, if you look at the actions of the government and when it was in opposition, there was no genuine commitment to the scheme from my observations. Despite the government's claim of support for the scheme and empathy for people with a disability, the NDIS is only being rolled out today because of Labor, just as it has always been Labor that has led social reform in Australia. It is because of the Leader of the Opposition and because of the member for Jagajaga that the NDIS is becoming a reality for Australians across the country.
Only people with a serious disability and their caring family members would fully understand the 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week, 52-weeks-of-the-year, year-in-and-year-out disadvantage, difficulties, sacrifices and hardships that they endure. If that is not enough, there are ongoing lifetime financial costs including medication, medical devices, loss of income, home modifications, transport costs and so on—costs which to date they have had little support to try and meet. In a prosperous country that Australia is, there is no justification for fellow Australians continuing to endure such disadvantage and such hardship. The NDIS was needed, it was long overdue, and a Labor government made it a reality.
Now the Turnbull government wants to reneg on delivering the NDIS in full with its spin lines that Labor did not fully fund the program. That is a dishonest claim from a government that has lost control of its budget, lost control of its finances and is looking for a way out. We know that the budget deficit for the 2016-17 year is heading towards $37 billion in the red. Even more despicable is that the Turnbull government now wants to trade support for one group of vulnerable Australians—that is, people with a disability—against other vulnerable Australians including pensioners, the unemployed and students. Claims that Labor had not fully funded the NDIS have been clearly shown to be false by the member for Jagajaga. Labor had clearly defined a ten-year funding proposal for the NDIS which included a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy, reforms to retirement incomes, private health insurance rebate reforms, the phase out of the net medical expense tax offset and other long-term savings proposals as well. In addition to that, we know that the state and territory governments will also contribute almost half the cost towards the scheme.
But if government members believe the minister's claim that the scheme was not fully funded then I remind them that they have now been in government for almost four years. If the government was committed to the NDIS and it really believed its funding spin, it has had four years to find the funds. This legislation, which simply establishes a NDIS savings special fund, is just another attempt by the Turnbull government to delay the full funding and roll out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Another special account is not required because the reality is a special account already exists. It was set up by Labor. It is called the DisabilityCare Australia Fund, which is where increased Medicare levy funds go.
Sadly the victims of the Turnbull government's dishonesty and spin are again the most vulnerable Australians, people with a disability, who are being used as pawns and left with uncertainty. It is true that the NDIS has transformed the lives of those people who can now access the NDIS, and I have heard some truly amazing stories in respect of that. However, others are still waiting. For them, every week that access is delayed is another week of hardship that they endure.
Rather than play politics with the lives of vulnerable Australians, the government could fix its budget mess by adopting Labor budget savings measures. It could adopt Labor's negative gearing policy, which alone would save the government around $32 billion over the next 10 years. And it could drop its unnecessary $50 billion company tax cuts, which hand out tens of billions of dollars to already very profitable big businesses. That is what most Australians would expect the government to do. But blinded by its ideology, the Turnbull government is prepared to sacrifice struggling families in order to keep big business and billionaires on side. The government's claim that the $50 billion company tax cuts will create more jobs and growth simply does not withstand scrutiny. Many of those very companies that will benefit from the $50 billion in tax cuts are already making billions of dollars in profits each year and they are all continuing to cut jobs. Inequality in this country is widening and the big corporates are getting wealthier while, for struggling Australians, life gets tougher.
As the Leader of the Opposition highlighted today in question time, today's national accounts confirm that corporate profits had their biggest increase in 40 years while wages and salaries had their largest fall in over 20 years.
A report by the Australia Institute released very recently highlights that Australia's richest 10 people—the richest 10 people, not the richest 10 per cent of Australians—own as much in financial assets as the bottom 20 per cent of Australians. Those 10 richest Australians own as much as nearly four million Australians own at the lowest end. Using another comparison, Australia's top 20 per cent own 62 per cent of the wealth, whilst the bottom 20 per cent own just 0.9 per cent.
Those figures paint a very clear picture. Where are the trickle-down economics by which this government justifies its $50 billion tax cuts to big business? If they were there, the gap would be narrowing, not widening, but the figures tell a different story. That is why the $50 billion in tax cuts to big business cannot be justified when the government is asking people such as those with a disability to forgo the funding they need because the government needs it to fund its cuts for big business, a sector that does not need them.
In question time two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was twice asked about funding the NDIS. After some six minutes of hysterical ranting, the Prime Minister failed to reassure families that NDIS funding would be delivered in full and on time. Any person waiting for NDIS support does not want to hear the Prime Minister playing a blame game with the issue, talking about budget shortfalls or talking about the NDIS not being fully funded. They just want reassurance that the NDIS will be funded in full and on time. They do not want to hear threats that the NDIS funding is contingent on cuts to other family payments, as outlined in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill that was debated in the House only yesterday.
On 16 February, the minister advised the House that, by the end of June 2016, 63,482 people were on the NDIS. By the end of 2019-20, all eligible people—that is, around 460,000—will be on the NDIS, at an annual cost of $22 billion, of which the Commonwealth government will have to find $11.1 billion. The minister claims that, based on known income streams, the $11.1 billion figure will leave a $4.1 billion shortfall. That is down from a previous figure of $4.4 billion. In any case, the minister claims there will be a $4 billion plus shortfall, hence the government's attempts to tie NDIS funding to welfare cuts, as it has been endeavouring to do ever since it has been in office—in other words, make one group of Australians pay for another group's needs.
It seems, though, that the government is running into difficulties getting some of its proposals through. It is running into difficulties because Australians understand unfairness when they see it, as do members in this place. That is why members of the Labor Party and crossbench members in this House are opposing some of those measures. They understand that it is simply not fair to make one vulnerable group of Australians pay for another group's needs. Where does that leave the rollout of the NDIS if the government's proposed cuts to pensions, family payments, unemployment payments and student payments do not get through?
That brings me to this bill. It is not the government's bookkeeping diversions that will provide certainty to people waiting to get on the NDIS; it is a commitment to the funding required. Of course, we know the government could also fund the scheme by adopting some of the policies that Labor has put forward that I referred to earlier. But it refuses to do that, again for its own blind, ideological reasons. The government knows full well that some of the measures that it continues to fund are unfair and unjust when contrasted with the needs of people with a disability.
The government claims that there is a $4.1 billion shortfall in the funding of the NDIS. In addition to playing one group of vulnerable Australians off against another in order to find the funds, it is of equal concern that it is just as likely that the government will play one group of people with a disability off against another. That truly concerns me, because what it really means is not only that the program will not be rolled out as expected and as proposed by Labor but also that the government, in order to fund one category of recipients, may well do that by cutting funding to another.
There is still uncertainty about the inclusion of some categories of need in the scheme, and, if they are included, under what conditions that will be. For example, childhood hearing services are currently being transitioned into the NDIS. However, there is uncertainty about the funding framework and the services that will be available. There are fears that hearing-impaired children may be even worse off under the NDIS compared with the funding support that they are currently eligible for. The unresolved issues relate to eligibility criteria, scope of services, duration of services, referral arrangements and the funding itself.
Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, as you would know well as deputy chair of the standing committee on health, which is currently running an inquiry on hearing issues, early diagnosis and treatment of hearing impairment is crucial to a child's future. Any attempt to cut NDIS costs by diluting the hearing services required by children will come at the expense of those children and their families. Children's hearing services would not be the only area of disability funding that is still unresolved and leaving people with uncertainty. Indeed, I wonder what other sneaky measures the government is considering in order to try and find funds for the National Disability Insurance Scheme rollout. We will watch with interest what happens in the months and years ahead.
As the member for Jagajaga quite rightly pointed out, this is simply another stunt by the government so it can pretend that, if there is a problem with the rollout of the NDIS, it is all Labor's fault because it was not fully funded. Nothing could be further from the truth. Labor funded it not only to the year 2020, which is when the minister claims the full rollout for 460,000 people will be in place; Labor fully funded it for a 10-year period. Setting up another account is not what is required. What is required is a commitment from this government.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (18:52): I am delighted that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is coming to the Illawarra on 1 July 2017. It was introduced into the Southern Highlands area of my electorate much earlier but in the Illawarra it will be providing services to people with disabilities and their families from 1 July this year. That is a good thing. When Labor developed the NDIS, we envisaged a game-changing approach to receiving the services and equipment needed by people living with a disability to enable them to live their lives to their absolute fullest.
The NDIS was designed to enable people living with disability to participate more in society—at school, work and the community. They shouldn't need to go from charity to charity for the essential, life-changing equipment that they need or for the basic care to fulfil functions that the rest of us take for granted. This is the NDIS people are excited about coming to the Illawarra, and I hope that it is real.
I have mentioned the fact that it is already in the Southern Highlands part of my electorate. I would like to give a shout out to Bruce Munford from Moss Vale. He is a bit of a character and he is a client of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. He is a bit of local celebrity. I went into bat for Bruce a few months ago after initial concerns that he had with his plan under the NDIS. I am very pleased to say that that has now been resolved after NDIS staff listened to the concerns that we raised with them and sorted them out very quickly. In that process Bruce spoke out about the challenges that he faces with multiple sclerosis, and the assistance he needs to fulfil tasks we all take for granted every day just to get by. His condition will steadily and inevitably get worse. Without the NDIS, Bruce believes he would be left to bang on the doors of charity for assistance. He thought he might have to live in an institution and not be able to live with his wife in the house he has lived in for many years in the close company and his family.
The NDIS has given him more flexibility, more autonomy and more transparency with the services that he needs, but he is constantly worried, and for good reason, that the government is trying to avoid providing a properly funded service—that they are trying to reduce their own responsibilities under the scheme. I'm going to use Bruce's exact words here:
I'm worried the Government are increasingly divesting themselves from the original plan for NDIS that Julia Gillard and Labor Government laid out.
Bruce, once again, has hit the nail on the head.
If the government will not listen to us and if the government will not listen to disability groups, then perhaps they will listen to the people the NDIS was originally designed to benefit. While there are a lot of positive things we can say about the NDIS, I am sad to say this bill is part of a clumsy package of legislation which is designed to hold the National Disability Insurance Scheme to ransom for a range of other egregious cuts that the Australian people have already rejected, not once but in some cases twice. We are not going to let them get away with it. We think that the whole show is a bit of a smokescreen and it is not necessary. I will go on to explain why it is unnecessary.
I want to start, however, by making something very clear: the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded. The NDIS, which was designed, funded and introduced by Labor, is being introduced and delivered on time and within budget. This bill is nothing more than a distraction for the cuts that have been debated at great length in other bills that were before the house earlier today. Australians are simply not going to stand for it. In the 2013-14 budget, Labor clearly set out how the NDIS was going to be funded for 10 years—well past the transition to the full scheme and well beyond the forward estimates. This included reforms to the private health insurance and the very expensive private health insurance rebate, and some of those savings were diverted towards the funds for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There were also reforms to retirement incomes and the phase-out of the net medical expenses tax offset, as well as a whole range of other long-term savings proposals. In addition to this, the Medicare levy was also increased by 0.5 percentage points to 2 per cent. Normally a measure like that would be controversial, but I am quite certain of the fact that there was bipartisan support across the House and throughout the community at large; and this is evidence of the deep-seated community support for the scheme to which the additional Medicare levy went to fund.
These measures, combined with the contributions from state and territory governments, covered the cost of the NDIS for ten years. At the risk of labouring the point, I will say again: the NDIS is fully funded. The government knows this. And why do we know? Because they voted for almost every single one of those savings measures.
The minister's own department proved the NDIS is fully funded.
Mr Neumann: And they never made the point that it wasn't.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I am reminded by the honourable member that they never contradicted the fact that it was not. I thank the member for Blair for reminding me of that. This The Department of Social Services has outlined the funding sources for the NDIS, including $4.4 million from consolidated revenue. That is trivial in the overall scheme of things, but the point I make is that the department has confirmed it and the government has never contradicted what the department has said. The government continues to refer to this as a 'shortfall', but consolidated revenue is used to fund government expenditure. That is what it is there for; that is what it is consolidated for. That is what the majority of government programs are funded from and how they are funded, and this has already been confirmed by the department. So why the amnesia from the government? Why the backflip? We can draw no conclusion other than it is some ruse or some political stunt, perhaps to fill the agenda papers of parliament because the government does not really have much else on the agenda for us to deal with. So we are going to oppose the bill. I should have said that at the outset: we are going to oppose the bill.
Labor also objects to the way that this matter has been brought before the House. As I said before, it is an attempt by the government to hold the parliament to ransom and hold the NDIS to ransom for a range of other egregious savings measures. There is already a special account. I also want to make this point: the bill would establish a special account, but we say we do not need a special account and I will explain why. Labor already set one up. We already set up a special account: the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. This fund is credited with the additional revenue stream from the increase in the Medicare levy. This means that, if this bill succeeds, we will have two special accounts: the one set up under Labor and the one that the government is attempting to establish. We say it is not necessary. The coalition government's priorities and motives therefore must be questioned. Again, we say this bill is nothing more than a political stunt to mislead the public.
If the government will not listen to the very sound and reasoned arguments of Labor members and some of the Independents, perhaps they will listen to the disability groups who have been very outspoken on their views about this provision. I quote Peter Davidson from the Australian Council of Social Services. He said:
It is not obvious why this new fund is needed. Its purpose, apart from the generic one of funding the NDIS, is not clear and we don't believe it should be supported in its present form.
That is very polite language from Peter Davidson of ACOSS, but it is very clear in that comment that they cannot see the purpose and they are suspicious. Those thoughts are echoed by Alan Blackwood who represents the Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance. He said:
The Alliance does not support the Savings Fund as constructed in the bill … the notion of a funding shortfall portrayed in the bill and Ministers speech—
his second reading speech—
is actually concerning and—
what is more—
perplexing.
Those are the words of Alan Blackwood from the Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance.
Stephanie Gotlib is from Children and Young People with Disability Australia, an organisation that also objects. She said:
It is believed that the creation of this Special Account … places essential disability services and supports as non-core business of the Australian Government, with their full funding being dependent on other budget savings measures identified by the Government of the day.
The force of those three submissions is simply this: why are people with disability being treated differently, and why we are constructing a program for people with disability in a completely different way to the way we deal with other programs in both the Human Services and the Health portfolios and a whole range of other government programs? Why are we treating people with disability differently? That is a very good question to which the government has no answer.
Labor referred this bill to a Senate inquiry so we can better understand what the government is attempting to achieve in establishing an account. As was clear from the inquiry, it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on the people who rely on the scheme to provide services. We are not going to accept it. The government has not made a case for the establishment of the fund. As the disability groups, advocates and people who gave evidence to the Senate inquiry made clear, there is no case for it, but there is ample reason for Australians and the Australian Labor Party to be incredibly suspicious about what the government's true position is. We reject the bill.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (19:05): Like my colleagues, I speak in opposition to this bill, quite simply because it is not needed. It is nothing more than a cheap and sick political stunt that is designed to justify cuts to other social services programs on the basis of providing ongoing funding for what is a very important reform, the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We all know the importance of looking after people with disabilities. Labor established the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in the 2013-14 budget after an extensive period of consultation that was undertaken predominantly by the now Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, when he was Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services in the Rudd government. He travelled around the country, undertook extensive consultation with disability service providers, families, carers and, of course, Australians living with disabilities. What he found was that, quite alarmingly, in modern Australia people living with a disability are still second-class citizens. They are not getting the same level of support and access to rewarding and fulfilling lives and the opportunity to contribute to our economy that other Australians are enjoying. This finding was backed by a very thorough investigation and report from the Productivity Commission which looked at this issue and recommended to government that the National Disability Insurance Scheme be established. They did that on the basis of looking at the productivity benefits that would flow to Australia if we did establish the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and the Productivity Commission quite rightly found that we were holding back Australia's productivity and potential increases in GDP and incomes by not providing people with disabilities with the opportunity to live rewarding and fulfilling lives, undertake further education and training, be involved in the workforce, and ensure that they had connected and fulfilling lives that would ultimately not only improve their wellbeing and the social wellbeing of communities but grow our economy. It was on that basis that the Leader of the Opposition made a recommendation to government, cabinet supported it and the NDIS was announced in 2013.
As I said, when Labor announced it, we ensured that this important reform was fully funded in the 2013-14 budget, and it is only of late—really since the Abbott government was elected—that the questions the conservatives have thrown at this fund and this program have begun to surface. Firstly, then Prime Minister Abbott asked the commission of inquiry to look at not only this issue but government services more generally. The commission of inquiry recommended that additional funding was needed. Since then, we have had a conga line of conservatives lining up to criticise the NDIS, and to claim that the process is not funded, that we cannot afford this important reform and that there is a need for this special account to offset funding and offset programs in other areas, and to try and water down social services more generally. Well, as the Labor members have pointed out on several occasions in this parliament, through the Senate inquiry that was conducted into this reform—as have, indeed, many of the organisations that work in this space—this is simply not true. It is not true. And it is wilfully irresponsible for the conservatives, for the Abbott-Turnbull government representatives and for others who rail against this policy to claim that it is not funded, because it is fully funded and that was outlined in the 2013 budget.
In that budget we announced the 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to two per cent, to go into a special fund called DisabilityCare Australia that would, over the course of five years, be funded to the tune of $20.4 billion from 2014-15 to 2018-19. Some of that money was going to funding the NDIS. Admittedly, those funds would not cover all of the cost; we realised that when the fund was established. But we then found further savings measures in that particular budget over the course of the ensuing decade, and those other savings measures included a plan to ensure that there were reforms to the private health insurance rebate totalling $6.5 billion in value, $6 billion in retirement incomes reforms, and $20.6 billion in other long-term savings measures, and those other long-term savings measures included: changes to tax concessions for fringe benefits, changes to tax concessions for net medical expenses, changes to indexation of tobacco excises and increases to import processing charges. So there they are in black and white in the budget: fully funded, fully costed, signed off by Treasury, I might add, at the time, and never disputed when they were originally put into the 2013-14 budget. This is a point that was recently made very well by the Senate inquiry that looked into this bill that we are debating here today in the Labor members' dissenting report. So the claim that the NDIS is not fully funded is nothing more than rubbish and a concerted campaign from many conservatives who do not believe in the ideal of an NDIS and many commentators who want to see it underwritten and under-managed to ensure that it is never fully implemented.
There are other concerns that have been raised with this particular bill—namely, the establishment of a special account. Quite simply, there is no need for the establishment of this special account that this bill seeks to undertake. The reason is that there is already a special account that was established to fund the NDIS, and I mentioned that special account earlier—the DisabilityCare Australia fund that was established by Labor, which was receiving the funds from the increase in the Medicare levy. So the effect of this bill is to establish another special fund. And what is the reason? Simply so that the Turnbull government can claim that they need to make savings to other social security measures—most namely, cuts to pensions, cuts to benefits for unemployed people, cuts to family payments and cuts to paid parental leave. They are using this particular fund to justify cuts to social services in other areas. It represents this government's twisted priorities when it comes to budget savings measures and trying to increase revenue to ensure that our fiscal position is more sustainable in the future because, once again, they are attacking the most vulnerable and weak in our society and letting off the big end of town with their $50 billion corporate tax cut. Well, Labor says that that is not on. And we have called this for what it is: nothing more than a ruse and a sick attempt to divert attention and to try to claim that the NDIS is not fully funded so that they can make cuts elsewhere in the budget.
These are concerns that have all been expressed by stakeholders who work in this area. In the Senate inquiry that was undertaken into this bill over recent months, those concerns were enunciated by many of the people and providers that work in this area—particularly the concerns about the establishment of a special fund. Peter Davidson from ACOSS, in giving evidence to the inquiry looking at this bill, said:
… it is not obvious why this new fund is needed. Its purpose, apart from the generic one of funding the NDIS, is not clear, and we do not believe it should be supported in its present form.
Also Stephanie Gotlib from Children and Young People with Disability Australia said:
It is believed that the creation of this special account … places essential disability services and support as non-core business of the Australian government, with their full funding being dependent on other budget-saving measures identified by the government of the day.
Stephanie says it perfectly. The community and stakeholders have seen what is behind this bill and have called it for what it is. It is just another attempt by this government to cut social services.
There is also a concern regarding the minister's discretion. The minister will be solely responsible for policy and management of this fund. Again, this is a concern that has been expressed by stakeholders regarding the drafting of the bill and the management of this fund. In their submission, ACOSS said:
This has rightly caused concern amongst the disability sector, as a core part of the NDIS is the independent management of Commonwealth and State government funds by the NDIA. In addition, the funding cap sends a message that funding for the NDIS could be restricted, and consequently services and supports made available under the scheme would be limited.
That is the view of people who work in this industry and the stakeholders who are involved with this. They know what is going on here, and they see through what the government is doing in establishing this fund. The fund is not needed, because we already have a special fund for the NDIS. That was established by Labor in 2013-14.
The real reason that the government are doing is that they are seeking to make cuts to other social security measures in the budget to justify this fund, and those cuts will come to people on unemployment benefits, to pensioners, to families and to working mothers in this country—and that is wrong. It is wrong not only because of the substance of those cuts involved but also because they are attempting to mislead the public into believing that the NDIS is not fully funded—therefore needing this special fund and needing to make those cuts in other areas. That is downright deceitful. This fund is not needed, because the NDIS was fully funded by the Labor government in the 2013-14 budget.
The NDIS is a very necessary reform—something that we all understand will improve the lives of people in Australia living with disability. It will ensure that they can live rewarding and fulfilling lives. It will ensure that they can contribute to their communities and enhance their educational and productive capacity, which will end up growing our economy. It is a very important reform and it should not be undermined by deceitful acts such as this from this government, and I urge everyone to vote against this bill.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (19:17): I rise today to speak in strong opposition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account Bill 2016. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is the most ambitious and far-reaching social policy reform in Australia since Medicare. It recognises that disability can affect anyone, and all Australians should have access to support to live fulfilling and productive lives.
I have watched the growth of the NDIS since its earliest days, as my electorate of Newcastle was fortunate to be one of the national trial sites in this country, and it was one of the largest and most complex of the trial sites back in 2014. In this time, I have seen firsthand the transformational power of this landmark scheme on the lives of participants and their families. For the first time in our history, people with disability are able to make the decisions about the support they receive and how they receive it. In addition the NDIS will eventually return billions to the budget and create more jobs, because it gives people with a disability the ability to participate more actively in their communities and in the workforce.
So it is not surprising that, when the former Labor government established the NDIS in 2013, it enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Liberal and National members of parliament gave their heartfelt endorsement in this place and in their communities. People with a disability felt confident that this parliament had this strong bipartisan support and the scheme was protected from usual partisan politics that we see in this chamber. But, regretfully, we started to hear very different messages from those opposite once they moved onto the government benches. Conservative commentary started to take on a negative tone, as those opposite began to talk down the scheme and raise doubt about its future funding certainty.
Since 2014, we have sadly witnessed a growing stream of denigrating remarks, backgrounders and political manoeuvres from this government that can only be described as being deliberately designed to undermine this critical reform. If you want to see this strategy in action, you only need to look at the recent article in The Australian last month, which claimed serious blowouts in the NDIS and placed a question mark over its future funding. This assertion is not new; in fact, government members have been shopping it around in the media for some years now. But, contrary to the popular saying, telling a lie often enough still does not make it true. In fact, this myth was comprehensively shot down in Senate estimates on 11 February last year. Here, the government's own official told senators, and I quote:
There have been many, many inaccurate news reports about cost blowouts in the NDIS, and they are all inaccurate ... I can say on the record that the NDIS is tracking to budget.
That is what the official said in Senate estimates. Yet here we are almost exactly a year later and the Turnbull government is still trying to mislead Australians about the NDIS.
The second tactic the Turnbull government likes to use to denigrate the NDIS is to claim that it was never funded properly to begin with. And that is exactly what the bill before us today is about. It is the legislative attempt to create uncertainty about the viability of the NDIS into the future. By proposing the need for a 'special fund', Mr Turnbull is trying to legitimise the assertion that the NDIS was never funded properly. This claim is blatantly and demonstrably untrue. Let us be clear: this bill is the solution to a problem that does not exist outside the government's own confections. It is a political stunt designed to support the government's agenda of destabilising the NDIS.
Labor understands that people with disability, their families and carers deserve funding certainty on the NDIS. That is precisely why we fully funded it for 10 years. We did this by making difficult choices. The increase in the Medicare levy, combined with contributions from state and territory governments and other savings measures such as $6.5 billion in reforms to the private health insurance rebate, $6 billion in retirement income reforms and $20.6 billion in other long-term savings, ensured that the NDIS would be properly funded for 10 years. For anyone interested in seeing exactly where the savings came from, I recommend looking at the chart that Treasury tabled in the June 2013 estimates. It outlines very clearly where the savings were made and how the NDIS was funded. Coalition members would already be aware of the savings that were secured because they voted for almost every single measure. They agreed that they would fund the NDIS then. So why are they trying to cast doubt on this important funding commitment now? The fact that the Turnbull government continues to try to mislead the public is of grave concern to Labor. More importantly, it is of grave concern to the people in the disability sector, the people who rely on the NDIS and their loved ones. Every time the government starts talking about underfunding, I get calls and emails from people in my community and beyond who fear this could be the beginning of the end for this vital landmark initiative. The NDIS should be a vital government responsibility, just like health and education. By establishing a special account, the government sends a clear signal that it somehow sees disability support as outside of, or separate from, its core responsibilities.
Last year, the Senate held an inquiry into this bill. In its submission, the Department of Social Services outlined the funding sources for the NDIS, and the scheme includes some funding from consolidated revenue. While the government disingenuously refers to this as a 'shortfall', department officials confirmed to the inquiry that consolidated revenue is used to fund government expenditure in accordance with its priorities. The fact that the government is unwilling to use this money for the NDIS demonstrates clear problems with its priorities. Key disability groups have recognised that the construction of a special account as outlined in this bill is little more than a cynical, politically motivated exercise. In this regard, Peter Davidson from ACOSS said:
… it is not obvious why this new fund is needed. Its purpose, apart from the generic one of funding the NDIS, is not clear and we do not believe it should be supported in its present form.
Stephanie Gotlib from Children and Young People with Disability Australia warned that the creation of a special account would devalue disability support, saying:
It is believed that the creation of this special account … places essential disability services and support as non-core business of the Australian government, with their full funding being dependent on other budget-saving measures identified by the government of the day.
Alan Blackwood from the Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance had similar concerns, saying:
… the alliance does not support the savings fund as constructed in the bill.
… … …
… the notion of a funding shortfall, portrayed in the bill and the minister's speech is, actually, concerning and perplexing.
Another issue that was cited by many of the stakeholders who participated in the Senate inquiry was the inclusion of ministerial discretion in relation to the fund, as this legislation gives the minister sole responsibility for the management of the account. In its submission, the Australian Council of Social Service, or ACOSS, clearly articulated how this discretion could weaken the independence of the NDIS. The submission states:
The Minister for Social Services will be solely responsible for policy and management of the fund, which gives greater control to the Commonwealth and removes independence from the management of part of the Scheme's funding base. This has rightly caused concern amongst the disability sector, as a core part of the NDIS is the independent management of Commonwealth and State government funds by the NDIA.
Labor is extremely apprehensive about how this discretion might be employed by the government given its long history of trying to frustrate, denigrate and raise doubts about this vital scheme. Ultimately, this goes to a question of trust and, regrettably, the Turnbull government has shown too many times that it cannot be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to the NDIS.
This was further reinforced only last month, when the government disgracefully, and completely arbitrarily, linked its cruel cuts to families, pensioners and young people with the NDIS funding. Shamefully, it threatened to hold the NDIS to ransom unless this parliament passed its vicious omnibus bill, which is full of zombie cuts that have been revived from Tony Abbott's toxic 2014 budget. This confirms that the government is embarking on an appalling and blatantly political strategy to destabilise the NDIS and pit Australians against each other. I can think of no more disgraceful act a government could carry out on its citizens. Trying to play off people with disabilities against pensioners, families, jobseekers and students is appalling and something we should be utterly ashamed of. At the same time, it created enormous and unnecessary anxiety for many, many thousands of Australians about the future funding of the NDIS. Mr Turnbull should, as I said, be utterly ashamed of this attempt to link the future of the NDIS with support—
The SPEAKER: The member for Newcastle needs to refer to members by their correct titles.
Ms CLAYDON: for cruel cuts to vulnerable Australians. I take your point, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister should be utterly ashamed of this attempt to link the future of the NDIS with support for cruel cuts to vulnerable Australians. This government's willingness to use one of the most important generational reforms this country has ever seen as a pawn in its vicious game is proof positive that it simply cannot be trusted. I will take the opportunity to speak in continuation when the debate is resumed, Mr Speaker.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:29): It being almost 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
International Women's Day
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (19:29): With International Women's Day just around the corner on 8 March, I would like to reflect on this year's theme: be bold for change. A lot has changed in my electorate for women, and women have led the campaign for change. While I am the first woman elected for the seat of Braddon, it was Dame Enid Lyons, of the former seat for my region of Darwin, who was the first woman elected to the House of Representatives and the first woman in the federal cabinet.
As I reflected in my first speech to parliament, Dame Enid has left a rich legacy. Dame Enid knew that she would pave the way for women in the public service for years to come. We have come a long way since Dame Enid, but we still have a long way to go. There are many inspiring women in Braddon today who have led the charge for change. Whether it be in industry, in local government or in other sectors, there are many women who stand out in my electorate. We have leaders such as Professor Janelle Allison, former Pro Vice-Chancellor at the Cradle Coast campus of UTAS; the Managing Director of Caterpillar, Kelly Elphinstone; and the Chairman of the Cradle Coast Authority, Cheryl Bellchambers. We have leaders in government, with the first female president of the state's legislative council, Sue Smith. In local government, we have our mayors: the Mayor of the Burnie City Council, Anita Dow; and the Mayor of the Central Coast Council, Jan Bonde. More locally, in my home town in Devonport, we have former mayors Mary Binks OAM and Lynn Laycock.
There are many other women who often go above and beyond for our community and who often go unrecognised. That is why, in my former role as an alderman on the Devonport City Council, I was proud to support events like Diamonds of Devonport—an event recognising the contributions and achievements of local women—and, running concurrently this year, a program of public forums aimed at educating and empowering women. I would like to thank my former council colleague and the current deputy mayor, Annette Rockliff, for her work in establishing this event five years ago and ensuring it continues today.
There are 130 women who have been named as a Diamond of Devonport. They include women such as Kristy Lockwood, a photographer who generously donates her services to charities and non-profit organisations so they can fundraise from her work; Beth Cahill, who enriches the lives of our elderly residents in their final chapter; and Betty Lehman, who started the Coastal Driving School in the 1960s—the first female licensed driver on the northwest coast—and who continues to assist people with transport needs. These are just some of the women in Devonport who have been recognised for their achievements. There are many more women across the electorate who are doing great things—not for recognition, but because they want to be part of change.
I am inspired by the Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council—TMEC—which is based in my electorate, for the work that they are doing to change and challenge the perception of women in the minerals and resources sector, to recognise their exceptional contribution and to encourage more women to consider career opportunities in these industries. The Tasmanian Women in Resources awards will be held this May. With Tasmania's past success in the Women in Resources National awards—such as Kelly Jane Down from Bell Bay Aluminium winning the Glencore Outstanding Australian Tradeswoman, Operator or Technician last year—I am sure there will be many exceptional women nominated this year. I encourage those women to nominate.
International Women's Day calls for us to commit to help women and girls achieve their ambitions, to challenge conscious and unconscious bias, to achieve gender balance in leadership, to value women's and men's contributions equally and to create inclusive and flexible cultures. On 8 March this year and, indeed, on every day, I will make it my mission to be bold for change. Let us stand up and do what we can to demonstrate our potential to be the leaders of change.
Electricity Infrastructure
Mr PASIN (Barker) (19:34): I spoke in this place in November of last year about the energy crisis facing my home state of South Australia in the wake of what was a devastating, state-wide blackout that not only affected 1.7 million households but had serious financial consequences for many of our state's largest employers.
Today, I rise to speak again on this topic—this time in the wake of what we have seen, namely a blackout per month since. Most recently, February's power outage in South Australia yet again highlights the serious and urgent challenges facing the South Australian electricity network. This latest incident is yet another example of SA Labor's failed energy policy experiment. South Australia, sadly, has become a national laughing stock when it comes to this energy policy. The South Australian Labor government is pursuing a 50 per cent renewable energy target, and it has compromised South Australians' access to affordable and reliable power. By relying so heavily on intermittent sources of power, particularly wind, our state is left vulnerable during periods of peak demand like today.
I will speak more about today in a minute, but on 8 February, South Australia had insufficient electricity generation as wind was only supplying 2.5 per cent of the scheduled demand due to low winds. The wholesale electricity spot price, which had been averaging around $100 a megawatt hour this financial year, reached a whopping $14,000 a megawatt hour on that day. Indeed, on that day, South Australians paid an average, over 24 hours, of $2,099 a megawatt hour. This compares, Mr Speaker, with your Victorian constituents, who paid an average of $135.80 for the same power generated at the same plant on the same day.
I said I would speak more about today. Today was a warm day in South Australia and, low and behold, at 3.25 this afternoon, prices for electricity on the spot market again reached $14,000 a megawatt hour. At the very same time, effectively for the very same electricity, Tasmanians paid $113, Victorians paid $122 and New South Welshmen paid $117, as did our friends in Queensland.
This is playing directly into the question of jobs, employment and inward investment in my state. A local restaurant owner contacted me today to tell me that his electricity bills in January 2017 have more than doubled since January 2016. He operates two restaurants in my electorate. His bill for January 2016 in each of the restaurants was roughly $7,000. The bill he has just received in January 2017 saw those electricity costs increase to over $15,000. That is an increase over the 12 months of roughly $180,000 across the two stores. He immediately equated that for me to effectively four or so full-time staff. And one wonders why South Australia suffers the highest rate of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, in the country! These dots line up directly.
It is high time that the South Australian state Labor government recognises that these highly reckless renewable energy targets put energy security and affordability at risk. It is not good enough. It is not good enough for businesses that rely on power to operate, to employ people and to earn export dollars. The detriment to the sustainability of the South Australian economy is hard to fathom. Indeed, it is hard to put up with the constant barbs in this place asking whether the lights are on at home.
This is, however, not just an economic issue. It is a serious matter of public health and safety. For the elderly and the young, enduring high temperatures with no access to air conditioning can not only be distressing but be fatal. The South Australian state Labor government needs to give up its ideological obsession with green power to ensure that South Australia's energy mix meets the needs of hardworking, everyday South Australians. Mr Speaker, if that means building a low-emitting, high-efficiency coal powered station in your state of Victoria in the Latrobe Valley then, quite frankly, we have to get on with it. My constituents cannot afford to keep paying $14,000 a megawatt hour.
Workplace Relations
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (19:39): Every day it becomes clearer that this is a government whose prime motivation is protecting and advancing the narrow interests of corporations and billionaires and unpicking the social contract that has made this country the envy of the world. This is a government that tells Australians that to pay down debt it must cut pensions and that it cannot afford better health care and education but can afford a $50 billion tax cut for corporations and banks.
This is a government that issues 20,000 letters a week to demand repayment of overpaid social security, no matter that many demands are wrong, but fails to pursue corporate tax avoiders in the same way. This a government that releases the confidential information of individual citizens who criticise it but refuses to release the diaries of its Attorney-General so that Australians might learn who has his ear. It is a government that gleefully welcomes a direct cut to the wages of more than 600,000 Australians who work Sundays and public holidays, claiming cheaper wages boosts jobs, but then it defends multimillion dollar pay for company executives. Every decision this government makes strikes at the heart of Australia's traditions as a nation of fairness. Every decision advances the interests of the wealthiest and the most powerful while further weakening the interests of our poorest and most vulnerable.
Australia's income inequality is at a 75-year high—the gap has not been wider since the Second World War—and the decisions this government makes and the action that it takes widen the gap further. The wealthiest one-fifth of households in Australia now have 12 times the wealth of the bottom one-fifth. The inherent unfairness of this income gap is bad enough, but it is also bad for our society and our economy. When the gap gets this big, social mobility becomes so difficult that it is almost impossible. If you are born to poverty in a society with entrenched income inequality, you can work hard every day of your life and remain in poverty. A great feature of our society has been that the circumstances of our birth do not predetermine our future. Children born to poverty or other disadvantage here can rise to any station through ability and application.
A key facet of the success of our society is a progressive tax system where those with the greatest means bear the greatest load. This government has been hell-bent on reversing that. Business must pay its way. In the words of US senator Elizabeth Warren:
There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there—good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory … Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea—God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
Never has a truer word been said. If we all pay our way, we are all richer for the experience.
How on earth in these circumstances when we have record-low wage growth and record-high company profits can Australians sustain a wage cut? The McKell Institute did a paper called 'Who loses when penalty rates are cut?' Their research shows that these cuts are going to hit our whole community. That is because people who earn less spend less. They are less likely to head to the shops when they can barely keep a roof over their heads. The McKell Institute estimates that these cuts could potentially rip between $370 million and $690 million from regional communities like those in my electorate of Lyons.
Wage growth is already low. Even the Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe has expressed concerns that record-high levels of household debt and record-low wage rises is constraining consumer spending, which in turn is slowing economic growth. A $77-a-week pay cut for some of the poorest people in our country who are on the lowest incomes already will only worsen the situation. The average food service worker earns $524 a week, and the average retail worker earns $687. These people cannot afford to lose a dollar more. Let's make business pay its way.
Robertson Electorate: Medical Workforce
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (19:44): Families in my electorate on the Central Coast deserve to be able to access a local GP nearby when they are sick and when they need to see one. I rise to speak about this important issue tonight because, sadly, it appears not to be the case for too many people living in suburbs like Woy Woy, Umina, Ettalong and Patonga. The shortage of GPs on the peninsula, in particular, has, to quote a respected local doctor, moved 'past crisis point'. This has been a major issue and a great source of frustration for many people on the peninsula for a number of years now, with the added pressure of a rapidly growing population.
After years of inaction from Labor on this very issue, the coalition made it part of our growth plan for the Central Coast in the lead-up to the 2013 election. We pledged to look into the unique circumstances facing our region in attracting doctors. We accepted that more needed to be done. Part of the reason was the district of workforce shortage system, known as DWS, which at that time was using data from 2004. Thanks to this government, we made vital changes to the DWS calculations so that now the most up-to-date data are used to identify areas where there is a doctor shortage, which in some cases will make it easier to plan and to recruit doctors. As part of this commitment, we fought for and delivered a change that opened up opportunities for the availability of doctors in 26 new suburbs in the electorate of Robertson, including Avoca Beach, Copacabana, Davistown, Empire Bay, Erina, Green Point, Killcare, Kincumber, Saratoga, Terrigal and Wagstaffe. But, unfortunately, these changes did not include Umina Beach, Ettalong Beach, Woy Woy and other suburbs in the peninsula region.
I met with Dr Ray Martin at his Umina surgery last week about this issue. Dr Martin has been practising as a GP on the peninsula for three decades. He said that the doctor shortage was 'quite extreme'. With plans to move on and finish up his practice at the end of the month, around 1,200 patients will now be looking for a doctor because Dr Martin has not been able to successfully recruit another GP to replace him. This is a critical issue. It was published in the Central Coast Express Advocate this week. That has led even more residents to call, write and post on my Facebook page about this issue.
Tania emailed me, saying that she was finding it extremely difficult to find a practice which has its books open to accept new patients. This being the case, she feared the only solution for many of the affected people would be to go to emergency at Gosford Hospital. Robert from Booker Bay said how Dr Martin had been his family doctor for many years and that he fears he will have no access to a GP nearby when he closes this practice. Maria shared that because she is suffering from asthma she is forced to travel to Sydney for appointments and treatments. She admitted that her family moved to Umina in December 2013 and that they still have not been able to see a local doctor. Ray, also from Umina, said he has to book four or five days in advance to see a doctor. Lesa shared a sentiment that is true for many families, saying that it is very sad when you lose your family doctor. She noted the impact because of the build-up of trust that is very hard to replace. Kane wrote and said that he has lived on the peninsula since October and that he has been turned away from every practice on the peninsula. Even if there is a booking free, they will not see him. Clint said the line 'we're not taking new patients' is what you hear from almost all the surgeries in Woy Woy and Umina. Woy Woy pharmacist Lance Clarke, who has been servicing the area for 32 years, described the situation as 'ridiculous'.
This week, I have spoken with the Minister for Health. I met at length with the Assistant Minister for Health, Dr David Gillespie. And I will pass on each and every one of these concerns that I have raised in parliament today and the dozens more from people who have since written. In the coming weeks, I look forward to welcoming Dr Gillespie, who has responsibility for health workforce, to my electorate to look at forming a strategic and considered approach to attract quality health providers to our region. We will work closely with local stakeholders, like the highly effective primary health network, and our local community to create a strategy for recruitment with a focus on long-term sustainability and supply.
Of course, ultimately it is not the government's job to either train or higher GPs. But the complexity of this issue, I understand, means that DWS may not be the only answer. We can, of course, put long-term plans in place, like we have done with the $32½ million investment in a central coast medical school and medical research institute while working alongside the New South Wales government, the University of Newcastle and other stakeholders to build an exciting growth precinct from this. That will help to train more local GPs on the Central Coast and, therefore, attract more GPs to our region. But, ultimately, it is actually our responsibility to listen to the concerns of our residents, to raises these concerns in the parliament and to act where we can on issues as urgent as this. It is especially important because of the personal impact it has on the lives of people who live on the peninsula. We have a strong record of delivering on this important issue in the past. We have determination to deliver again in the future.
Holt Electorate: Legal Aid
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (19:49): I rise tonight to discuss threats to the work of essential community organisations in my electorate such as the Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service, the Peninsula Community Legal Centre, the Cranbourne Information & Support Service and the Casey North Community Information & Support Service. They provide indispensable support and assistance to local residents.
In the rapidly growing outer suburbs of Holt in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne there is an ongoing need for services provided by these local community organisations. In Holt, we have a constant challenge, with new housing estates being built. The Cranbourne East and Clyde area is the fastest growing region in Australia. However, social infrastructure often is not keeping up with this explosive population growth. So, at a time when local community organisations in Holt are crying out for additional support to deal with the growing demand for their services, I am incredibly disturbed to hear that the Turnbull government is actively threatening cuts to the funding of these organisations.
On 1 July 2017—in just three months—the Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service, led by Vera Hardiman, and the Peninsula Community Legal Centre, led by CEO Jackie Galloway, will be forced to turn away local residents due to the funding cuts inflicted by the Turnbull government. The Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service and the Peninsula Community Legal Centre help thousands of local residents in need of free legal advice and assistance. They are on the frontline in the battle against domestic violence and assist people with problems as diverse as Centrelink debt, CityLink fines, tenancy disputes and employment issues.
The Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service and its dedicated staff and volunteers have been assisting and supporting our local community for 40 years through its two offices in Dandenong and Narre Warren. The Peninsula Community Legal Centre has been working in the local community since 1977, particularly through its local office in Cranbourne. However, it is reported that both legal centres are now set to lose 30 per cent of their funding, which would seriously jeopardise their ability to operate. When in government, Labor delivered an extra $400,000 to the Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service over four years. Now, this government is taking the funding away at a time when there is growing need for the services provided by both legal centres. The Casey Cardinia Community Legal Service last year provided 15,000 forms of legal advice, 2,000 ongoing cases, 900 Family Court matters, 100 other court matters and 40 community talks and presentations. If anything, these centres need additional funding not less.
At the same time that our local community legal centres are about to suffer funding cuts, the Cranbourne Information & Support Service and the Casey North Community Information & Support Service are being asked by the Department of Social Services to respond to a discussion paper on the future redesign of the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity funding, which they believe could lead to more cuts to their funding in 2018.
The Australian government provides about $100 million each year under the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity to fund services like the Cranbourne Information & Support Service and the Casey North Information & Support Service so that they can provide much-needed advice and support to alleviate financial stress and hardship and improve life outcomes for people in our region. Under the plans to redesign the Financial Wellbeing and Capability activity funding, Leanne Petrides, for example, from the Cranbourne Information & Support Service, is concerned about how the centre will be able to continue to provide an effective and dignified service to extremely vulnerable people who live under intense financial hardship under the proposed new conditions or funding model. Leanne Petrides has stated that under these new conditions organisations are being asked how they will work to maximise people's income and decrease their expenditure. However, for example, when someone is on Newstart and paying 80 per cent of their income on rent, this is difficult to achieve.
Leanne is concerned that when the local workforce is becoming increasingly casualised and families are suffering cuts to payments it does not take much for a family in our region to need financial support. If someone loses a part of their income and can no longer pay for their car registration or keep up with paying bills or rates, they are forced to rely on local services like Cranbourne for financial support. Over the last year the Cranbourne Information & Support Service has provided over 15,000 services or occasions to 10,000 households. Emergency relief was the most utilised service, with over 6,400 requests for assistance, with housing, transport and cost of living expenses driving most requests for support.
While the Department of Social Services has stated that the overhaul of funding does not mean an overall nationwide cut to funding, it also does not mean that individual local organisations like those in my electorate of Holt will not be receiving a funding cut in 2018. All of these services provide a much-needed support for the community. They need to be supported, not to have their funding cut. I urge the government to reconsider these funding cuts.
O'Connor Electorate: Flooding
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (19:54): I rise tonight to update the house on the efforts to repair damage caused by flooding in Western Australia last month, particularly in my electorate of O'Connor. The impact on entire state has been severe, with 88 local government authorities being declared eligible for disaster recovery assistance. It has become clear that in the south-east of the state this was a once-in-a-lifetime event and a full comprehensive recovery project will take years to carry out. I also need to mention the tragic loss of two lives.
Last sitting week I received leave from the parliament to head home to assess the damage and offer my community support where possible. I want to thank the Opposition Whip and the member for Fowler for giving me a pair, and I also want to wish Chris a speedy recovery from his accident. Driving south from Perth through my electorate in the wheat belt, the damage got worse as I headed further south. Brookton, Pingelly and Cuballing suffered from heavy rain but no real damage. It was good steady rain and in fact the farmers are probably fairly happy. In Narrogin, Wagin and Katanning damage is likely to run into millions of dollars to local government authorities, farmers are looking at replacing many kilometres of fences and there were some sheep losses. A little further south into Gnowangerup we are looking at about $10 million of damage to the road network in the shire plus, once again, significant damage to farms.
Further south-east down the south coast at Ravensthorpe the damage that I witnessed was quite extraordinary. The shire CEO, Ian Fitzgerald, suggests that the damage within that shire alone will be around $15 million to the road network. I met some farmers out on Springdale Road. I met Sam Foulds, who is a cropping farmer and owns a property that runs right to the coast at the termination of the Jerdacuttup River. I witnessed about 500 hectares of his farm that is about a metre under water. That water has nowhere to drain and no-one really knows how long it is going to evaporate and disappear, so obviously he is going to suffer some serious financial damage. I also caught up with Wes and Peter Daw, whose farm is on the South Coast Highway where the Jerdacuttup River crosses the South Coast Highway. The damage there was extraordinary—around 200 hectares of land completely stripped of topsoil; 50- to 100-year-old yate trees flattened by the force of the water that came through there. The Daw family have suffered probably 20 kilometres of fence loss and a couple of hundred hectares of topsoil washed down the river. My thoughts are certainly with those farmers down in the south-east area which suffered serious damage.
The damage to road infrastructure is enormous. Main Roads Great Southern manager, Andrew Duffield, estimates that the damage to the South Coast Highway is around $20 million through the Great Southern and overall about 850 kilometres of their network is affected. The Phillips River Bridge just to the west of Ravensthorpe on the main South Coast Highway has been completely destroyed and probably will not be replaced this year. Andrew estimates that full repairs will take about two years to complete.
One of the issues that I came across consistently when I was talking to the local government authorities was the arrangements for the natural disaster relief and recovery program. The main issue is the day labour issue, which means that local government authorities cannot use their own work crews to conduct the remediation work. They have to go out to tender and get outside contractors to come in and do the work. This is highly inefficient, probably adds to the cost and also slows down the projects. I have spoken to the federal justice minister, Michael Keenan, and he has offered Western Australia an exemption to the day labour rule. This exemption will allow local councils to use their own staff and get moving on the remedial work. Last week I wrote to the WA emergency services minister, Joe Francis, requesting that the state government take up this particular exemption. Unfortunately, as of this morning the Western Australian government has yet to submit a request.
The damage to much of Western Australia is severe and widespread. It will take many years for the shires and farmers to repair the damage and recover from the financial setbacks they have suffered. The Commonwealth government stands ready to assist, and I applaud Mr Keenan for his timely offer of an exemption to the day labour rule. I urge the Western Australian government, through its relevant agencies, to take up that offer.
Goldstein Electorate: Schools
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (19:59): Thank you for the opportunity to adjourn this debate, and particularly to start by thanking the wonderful attendance today from the student delegations from my electorate, particularly from Firbank Grammar and Haileybury Grammar, who both came to this parliament with their classes for one of the first times. It is only when you see the energy and idealism of young Australians, who have come into this place asking questions and probing about the future of our democracy, that you truly feel the sense of vitality of the purpose which we are here for.
When you look at the energy in their eyes while they ask important, difficult and challenging questions about the future of our country, this place comes alive. I recognise their contribution and their attendance today as part of the many school groups who attend this parliament from the Goldstein electorate. I want to say to all members, in light of adjourning this debate, that every time we see children engaged in our democracy what we are seeing is the future of our country. The contributions that they can make, and making sure that they have an ongoing enduring, inquiring mind, makes an important contribution to preserving our liberal democratic order into the future.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: LAND 155—Enhanced Gap Crossing Capability Facilities Project.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Russell Offices buildings 5 and 6, Infrastructure Upgrade, Russell, ACT.
Mr McCormack: to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Stage One of the Garden Island (East), Critical Infrastructure Recovery Program, Sydney.
Mr Albanese: to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there are close to 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, posing a grave threat to all humanity;
(b) nuclear weapons remain the only weapons of mass destruction not yet expressly prohibited under international law;
(c) the United Nations will convene a conference from 27 to 31 March and 15 June to 7 July 2017 to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination;
(d) the United Nations General Assembly has encouraged all United Nations member states to participate in the conference; and
(e) Australia, as a state party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is legally required to pursue negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament; and
(2) urges the Government to participate constructively in the conference.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) took the chair at 10:11.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Parramatta Electorate: Community Legal Centres
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (10:11): We all remember the dreadful 2014 Abbott-Hockey budget but many would not know that in the middle of all the other punitive cuts was a 30 per cent cut to community legal centres to take place on 1 July this year. Community legal centres are the hard end of the law. They deal with complex cases where one legal problem leads to another—family violence leading to tenancy issues; unpaid traffic offences—and they handle these interacting cases where other legal services, including legal aid, can only handle one legal problem at a time. They do the early intervention that prevents problems from escalating and saves families and the community both money and a whole lot of pain.
Lawyers are not well paid in this field and it is a place where most of the pro bono legal work is done. They are local, they know the area, they have great outreach and they do an extraordinary job in an area of law that nobody else touches in any real way. On 1 July this year we will see a dramatic downgrading of the services that these centres provide. George Brandis has only visited a handful of community legal centres but his cuts have already impacted in my area.
Former manager Maria Girdler has taken on the challenge of amalgamating three centres. The new Western Sydney Community Legal Centre is the result of a merger between the community legal centres in Hawkesbury-Nepean, Parramatta and Mount Druitt. The head office is in my electorate of Parramatta. It faces a 10 per cent cut from July this year, leaving hundreds of the most vulnerable people in our community without access to much-needed legal services.
It is managed by a volunteer management committee. It has lost two staff in the merger already and that has stretched the workload of those who remain. The centre delivers almost 12,000 case and advice services per year. In the last six months it has served 3,465 clients, including 1,400 within the Parramatta area. Over 64 per cent of its clients are women and the Parramatta office is dominated by family law and domestic violence issues at 37 per cent of its caseload.
As identified by the Stubbs report and the law survey of 2012, large numbers of people in Western Sydney are affected by key indicators for legal need and disadvantage, including single parents, victims of crime, families of children, disability and chronic ill-health, Indigenous, those on benefits, public and community housing, private renters, and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. We can, of course, add Centrelink debt. These are real people and as Western Sydney expands to over 3.4 million people by 2041 the need for legal services is growing not contracting.
The people of Parramatta deserve access to justice and I call on Mr Brandis to reinstate funding. These are committed people. Whatever money they are given they stretch to its limits, and the need is so great that if you doubled their funding they would still stretch it to its limits. They are extraordinary people doing great work and they deserve the support of this House.
Bradfield Electorate: Australia Day
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (10:14): Australia Day was very significant in the electorate of Bradfield, as it was around the country. Some eight constituents received a Medal of the Order of Australia, and I want to acknowledge those awards: Reverend Dr Roger Chilton of St Swithun's in Pymble for service to the Anglican Church of Australia and the community, Mr Michael McEwen for service to the community through a range of organisations, Mrs Pamela Walker for service to the Uniting Church in Australia and to pastoral care programs, Mrs Patricia Spooner for service to the community through volunteer roles, Mrs Susan Nurse for service to the Uniting Church in Australia, Ms Tiffany Thomas Kane for service to sport—she was a gold medallist at the 2016 Rio Paralympic Games—Mr Yair Miller for service to the community through a range of organisations and to interfaith relations—of course, Mr Miller is a leader in the Jewish community on the upper North Shore and in the Australian Jewish community—and Dr Richard Schloeffel for services to medicine in the field of chronic and infectious disease. So I want to congratulate those Bradfield constituents who were justly recognised in the Australia Day Honours List.
Of course, Australia Day saw extensive celebrations in Bradfield. Ku-ring-gai Council organised their usual event at Bicentennial Park in Pymble, where many new citizens received their Australian citizenship, and it was a very joyous occasion. Hornsby Shire Council similarly organised a citizenship ceremony and community celebrations at Hornsby Park. So, both at Bicentennial Park in Pymble and at Hornsby Park, members of the community were able to enjoy a celebration of Australia Day with all kinds of entertainment, stalls and a genuinely joyous community feeling.
At Bicentennial Park in Pymble, Ku-Ring-Gai Council awarded the Ku-Ring-Gai Citizen of the Year award to Dr Zeny Edwards, who has made a very significant contribution over many years. She is an architectural historian, and she has been an advocate in relation to issues like the Ku-Ring-Gai Council heritage committee, the Historic Houses Trust, the National Trust and the Eryldene Trust—Eryldene, of course, being the historic home in Gordon. She is originally from the Philippines. She has lived in Australia for many years. She has made a very distinguished contribution as an architectural historian and is very deserving of the award of Ku-Ring-Gai Citizen of the year.
So Australia Day 2017 was a very happy day in Bradfield, as it was around the country.
Workplace Relations
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (10:17): There has been no greater asset to Australia than the Australian trade union movement, both in protecting wages and conditions and in service to the country. We saw this best through the accord years, where the trade union movement balanced a sectional interest, the interests of workers, with the interests of the country. I was a union official.
Government members interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: I hear those opposite baying. They should just listen and they might learn something.
Government members interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: I did not interrupt you. You think this is a joke, but protecting people's penalty rates is actually pretty important, so you can carry on like pork chops across the aisle, pretending this is a joke, but protecting workers' wages is actually very serious. That is why it is so important that this parliament and, indeed, the nation's media and the national discussion deal with facts rather than with misinformation.
It is one of the great problems, I think, of the current debate about enterprise, that my union, the SDA, is being assailed by misinformation put about by both the Trotskyist left, a very strange sort of beast, and the extreme right. It is a strange meeting of minds, but they hate moderate trade unionism, so it should be unsurprising that they are seeking to put out misinformation into the public domain. I am drawn to an appearance by COSBOA's Peter Strong on Sky News the other day, where he said:
They know that the great majority of Sunday workers are already on low rates. They know, as the largest union in Australia, the SDA, negotiated the agreements in the first place
I thought to myself that Mr Strong has talked about Coles and Woolworths agreements numerous times without dealing with the facts. While there is a lower rate on Sunday, there are higher rates during the week. If you want to know about this agreement, look at South Australia, where the same agreement was offered to small businesses by Business SA and the SDA—a template agreement any small business could take up. It had a 15 per cent increase in pay in exchange for broadly the same penalty rate settings. Do you know how many small businesses in South Australia took up this deal that Mr Strong says is not available to small business? Zero. The reason they did not is that labour costs are higher under these agreements—not lower, higher. So let's not have this misinformation put about in the public domain by Peter Strong and others—the Trotsky left; and I am not joking about that—that somehow the SDA has traded away Sunday penalty rates for nothing. They have traded away Sunday penalty rates for higher base pay. (Time expired)
Bangerang Nation
Mr DRUM (Murray) (10:20): I wish to acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament meets, and pay my respect to elders past and present. There is a Bangerang cultural centre in my home town of Shepparton. It was set up in 1982 at the south-east corner of Parkside Gardens and it was the first Aboriginal cultural centre located outside a capital city. A few months ago I bumped into a Bangerang elder by the name of Clinton Edwards as he played his didjeridu at a welcoming ceremony in the town of Katamatite. I asked him if he would be kind enough to make me a couple of didjeridus so that I could have one for my office in parliament and one for my electorate office, which he agreed to do.
Last week those works were presented to me. One was produced by Roland Atkinson. Roland made his didjeridu from mallee wood, with a design representing the Bangerang Nation, whose country includes Shepparton, where my office is located. The design features a kangaroo, which represents me taking my constituents' issues to Canberra. The designs on the didjeridu are stunning. They also feature the Goulburn River, as well as the Molonglo River here in Canberra. David Edwards made the other didjeridu for me. It is also made of mallee wood and depicts my regular journeys from my electorate of Murray to Canberra. Its designs also represent the Goulburn River and the Molonglo River, with kangaroo footprints representing my regular trips to Canberra.
The Bangerang clans clearly state that they have an unbroken link to the land around the greater Goulburn Valley. From the very first set of maps that were ever produced by European settlers, the Bangerang clans' unbroken link to land has been clearly established. However, when the Victorian government set in place Registered Aboriginal Party status, the Bangerang were left out. They do not have any status when it comes to determining the type of development that is taking place on their land. Those decisions are made by another Aboriginal group, the Yorta Yorta people. I am very passionate about the fact that the Bangerang clans should have co-RAP status. I call on the Victorian government to look at this issue again and give the Bangerang Aboriginal clans Registered Aboriginal Party status, because it is undeniable that they have had a clear and unbroken link to land ever since white settlers arrived in Australia.
Mount Barker District Soldiers' Memorial Hospital
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:23): I am pleased to announce to the parliament today that from 6 March the Mount Barker District Soldiers' Memorial Hospital will begin a three-month trial of having an overnight doctor. This is fantastic news for my community. Until this time, if it was two in the morning and you had a sick child you would have to bundle your child in the car and take them on the long trip down to Adelaide. It was the biggest issue the Adelaide Hills community raised with me during the election campaign, and I extend my gratitude to the state Minister for Health, the Hon. Jack Snelling, for his willingness to negotiate on this very important issue. I have full confidence that the three-month trial will show the need for the service to be implemented permanently.
While this is great news, there remain many health issues in my electorate, some federal and some state, that need to be addressed. We need a renal dialysis service in the Adelaide Hills. As many of you know, dialysis is a commitment of three days per week. A unit would save more than 1,500 trips to Adelaide each year for residents in my community. It would also relieve the burden on major hospitals. We need a headspace in my community and access to better mental health services, particularly on Kangaroo Island. I run a youth forum every two months called Young Mayo and it is absolutely packed; there is never a chair left. These young people are currently working on a petition that they are distributing through the community to get better health services, particularly better mental health services, for our community.
Several constituents have also raised with me the lack of Medicare-rebatable MRI access in our region. Up to 20 patients a day travel to Adelaide to have a scan because they cannot afford the $300-plus cost to have a scan in Mount Barker. That is 7,300 visits per year. These are pensioners, people on Centrelink and people who are vulnerable in our community. I will continue to advocate to the federal health minister on this issue and I am hopeful that we will secure a Medicare licence for a private MRI machine to be located in the Adelaide Hills.
While today is a great news day for citizens in Mount Barker and across the Adelaide Hills, I want them to know that I will continue to fight for health services in our region, from Mount Pleasant all the way down to Victor Harbor and through Kangaroo Island. If you do not have your health, you have nothing. We deserve the same services that metro Adelaide receives.
HMAS Perth
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (10:26): Seventy-five years ago today Australia was marred with the loss of 350 lives during the fierce sinking of HMAS Perth. In the days before the Battle of Sunda Strait, the American, British, Dutch and Australian allies lost five ships to the Battle of the Java Sea. Narrowly escaping this battle was HMAS Perthand USS Houston, which sadly met their match on the eve of 28 February 1942. A fierce battle broke out when the Perth was sighted by the Japanese. The Perth and the Houston were faced with an at-strength Japanese force that was fully armed as opposed to the allies, who had depleted arms from their recent battle in the Java Sea. At 12.25 am, approximately 20 minutes after the last torpedo strike, they sank. It was reported by the Japanese that 85 torpedoes were expended during the battle.
At the time of her loss, the Perth's company totalled 681 naval personnel, and my uncle Lloyd was one of those 681 sailors. To this day, he remains with his ship, 35 metres below water in the Java Sea, never to see his family again. Perhaps he was lucky not to have met the perils of the Japanese prisoner of war camps, where the 328 survivors were taken captive. Of those survivors, only 214 returned home at the end of the war. I recently received emails from Lloyd's daughter Anne and my cousins, who are dismayed at the lack of official recognition of the Perth. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission does not consider the shipwreck to be a war grave. The Battle of Sunda Strait, which took place on this day 75 years ago, remains a significant event not only in the Pacific war theatre but also in Australian maritime history. My family affiliation with HMAS Perth is not unique. I can assure members here today that I will continue to advocate for official recognition for those still resting beneath the water.
We are a proud country. We are proud of our past and present veterans. We are a country proud of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good. No-one should ever forget the liberties and freedoms afforded to each and every Australian as a result of our armed forces. A veteran is a veteran, and a grave is a grave. Whether you fell on the shores of Gallipoli or the Sunda Strait, or whether you are under six feet of Turkish soil or 35 metres of the Java Sea, every war grave must be recognised. Wherever the crew of the Perth may be, I thank them, I pay my respects and I hope that we can give them and their families peace. Lest we forget.
National Cervical Screening Program
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:29): I rise today to speak about the government's bungling of the life-saving Cervical Screening Program. This is the program that, of course, was tendered to Telstra Health. This is something that has been swept under the rug by this government. They are yet to tell women that their mishandling of the new test rollout will mean that women are going to face significant delays before they are able to access the potentially life-saving screening program. The screening test was due to replace the Pap smear from 1 May, with the new test estimated to cut the rates of cervical cancer by as much as 30 per cent, preventing around 140 cases of cervical cancer every year. In anticipation of the test starting on 1 May, the existing Pap smear program is being wound down across the country. There are now serious concerns that the delay could see a backlog of unprocessed Pap smear tests from May. The new test will not be ready on 1 May. People are shedding their workforce on the old test. It is expected that only one in five pathologists—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 10:30 to 10:50
Ms RYAN: Before the suspension, I was talking about the shedding of staff as one program winds down and the other has been bungled and is not yet set to start. How often have we heard that early detection is critical in cancer treatment? Experts are warning that lives could be at risk. Cervical cancer claims the lives of 250 Australian women each year, leaving pathologists and medical experts fearing that delays in detecting the diseases will have dire consequences.
Taxpayers are paying this corporation $220 million to construct a register that will not be delivered on time. The Australian people were told that the Liberal government would not be privatising the healthcare system. I distinctly remember, in the campaign in the last election, those opposite saying we are not privatising the system. Well, this part of the system has been privatised and now it has failed to meet its first benchmark, to meet a target in a critical area that has dire consequences for women's health.
Their ideas about letting the market deal with anything—Australian women need their attention on this. They need to solve this problem immediately. They need to make sure that these pap smears are dealt with and dealt with in a timely fashion.
Boothby Electorate: Seacliff Recreation Centre
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (10:52): Last week I visited the Seacliff Recreation Centre to meet with the wonderful centre volunteers and to see how our coalition government community grant has helped the centre do what it does best in supporting the community in my electorate of Boothby. The grant enabled the Seacliff Recreation Centre to install new outdoor lighting and an alarm system to increase the safety and security of centre users and of the centre itself.
I was given a tour of the centre by President Beverly Manns, under whose leadership the centre has built on its considerable success as a busy community hub. The centre has over 1,500 active members and hosts many groups, including the local gymnastics club, Seacliff Calisthenics, judo, KinderGym, jujitsu and the Seacliff Neighbourhood Watch. All of these sports groups are supported by many qualified coaches and the centre keeps busy with training sessions scheduled every weekday and night plus weekends for 47 weeks of the year.
Sadly, I couldn't make it to the centre's 2016 AGM but I would like to congratulate all the hard-working volunteers who received awards, including John Bollinger, who received a Certificate of Recognition for his long-standing support for the centre since 1973, and new Life Members, President Beverly Manns and Secretary Melissa Watts. Beverly and Melissa are involved in the KinderGym and the Judo Club respectively.
I was honoured to present a Certificate of Recognition to Treasurer Ute Jefferies, recognising her wonderful work at the 2015 AGM. The efforts of mother-and-son team Carolyn and Anthony Daly, who have given a combined 20 years of service between them, were also acknowledged in 2015. I must also congratulate the Seacliff Calisthenics Club for celebrating their 60th year of service in 2016. The club started in 1956 and is still going strong, testament to the wonderful volunteers and parents who run it and the girls who practice and compete. My grandmother did calisthenics and so did my sister and I. And, as I think a lot of people here know, I often wear my grandmother's calisthenics medal—as I am today.
I acknowledge Seacliff Calisthenics Chairperson Annette Simpson and board representative Megan Simpson who this year accepted the South Australian Premier's Certificate recognising the club's outstanding volunteer service over six decades. On behalf of the City of Holdfast Bay, Councillor Linda Yates also presented Sue Edward with a Certificate of Appreciation for her contribution volunteering for Seacliff Calisthenics for an impressive 35 years!
Over the summer break the centre resurfaced and polished their timber floors, put on a fresh coat of paint and cleaned their equipment ready for the busy year ahead. Late last year the centre also made the wise move of installing 80 solar panels, which will undoubtedly help with their operating costs. I look forward to enjoying activities at the centre in the weeks and months to come, and I congratulate all of the wonderful volunteers there for the great work that they do.
Community Legal Centres
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:55): Last year the National Association of Community Legal Centres held their annual conference in Fremantle, and it was a privilege to be in the company of people from around Australia who undertake such vitally important work. If the test of a lawyer or paralegal or tenancy advocate is the depth of their contribution to the greater good, to the welfare of their fellow men and women, then community legal staff are the best of the best. That is why the government's decision to cut funding to CLCs by 30 per cent on 1 July this year is really hard to believe—even from this Attorney-General.
The cut, first of all, represents a relatively small amount of money in the context of the Commonwealth budget. It is about $10 million per annum. We have to understand that that money pays for justice. It provides access to fair legal process for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our community. You cannot say that you care about the rule of law or that you care about the equality of people before the law and at the same time support these cuts. Those positions are incompatible; they simply cannot be reconciled.
The Fremantle Community Legal Centre does essential work in my community. It supports people dealing with eviction, bankruptcy and domestic violence. Seventy-two per cent of its clients earn less than $40,000 a year; 21 per cent have mental health issues or are people with disability; 27 per cent are single parents; and 10 per cent are Indigenous Australians. Over the last three years the number of clients with family or domestic violence issues has increased, but, as a result of previous funding cuts, the number of clients the centre can assist has fallen by 17 per cent, and that is now going to get significantly worse.
Even if you do not particularly care about the effect these cuts will have on the fabric of social justice in this country, you cannot ignore the economic good sense of saving vulnerable people from a deeper crisis. The Productivity Commission has found that every dollar invested in CLCs delivers $17 of community value. You would be very, very hard pressed to find another kind of public expenditure that delivers that kind of return. Previous studies have shown that every dollar invested in CLCs saves a further $4 being pushed onto another part of the social safety net. So, if for whatever reason you did not understand the necessity of proper funding for community legal services as a matter of basic social justice, you cannot get away from the cold hard fact that every dollar you cut from CLCs costs the public purse another $4. Make no mistake: these cuts are mean; they are senseless.
In Western Australia we copped the double whammy. We have had cuts to financial advice services from the Barnett government and we now have the Turnbull government intent on cutting a full third of existing funding to CLCs, even though this will do harm to both individuals and the budget bottom line. It is bad government, plain and simple. Community legal services should be properly resourced. They should be recognised for their enormous and vital good work in our community. These cuts should be abandoned today.
Calare Electorate: Gulgong Show
Mr GEE (Calare) (10:58): I often tell people that if you want to know what country communities are all about then come and have a look at a country show. It is show season in central western New South Wales at the moment. The shows are a highlight of the local calendar. On Saturday, 18 February, I attended the 2017 Gulgong show, the 129th year of that wonderful institution. It takes a lot of time and effort from hardworking volunteers to ensure the ongoing success of country shows like that at Gulgong, and I want to make special mention of the team at Gulgong, who put on such a great event recently.
I would like to mention president Ian Haynes, senior vice-president Chris Seis, junior vice-president Lisa Byfield, secretary Brigid Glover, Treasurer Judy Eady, assistant secretary Jean Monaghan and hardworking committee member Louise Butlin. I also mention the patrons: Ken Evans, Ruby Gossage, Bill Hensley, Jim McDonnell, Ernie Tolhurst and Toni Wright. I need to mention the pavilion steward, Wendy Byfield, and we could not forget the ringmaster, Brian Hardy. Of course, it would not be a country show without the cakes, and Ruby Gossage was the cake steward—she has been doing that for about 60 years. The MC and entertainment was provided by Des Kelly and Vangie Gudgeon, and it was a privilege to reunite the band in a sense when I did the Folsom Prison Blues and the Burning Ring of Fire with Des and Vangie in the pavilion later in the afternoon.
I would also like to mention Tony Wright and Ken and Esther Evans, who are life members on the committee; Tracey and Dave Spencer; and, of course the gentlemen in the wool section, who showed me through what had been happening in wool around the Gulgong area—Ron Rayner, Bruce Maxwell and Tim Maxwell. And, of course, I could not fail to mention Peter and Ann Doran, who did a wonderful job and who were working on the gate when I saw them too.
I also officially opened the 2007 Rylstone-Kandos Show on 25 February. Again, it was an exceptional show. I would like to mention president, Cameron Clarke; vice president, Sam Hamilton; vice president, Leanne Neilson; and secretary, Nancy Keck. Klaus and Nancy are well-known community workers in the Rylstone area. And I will also mention the committee members: Dian Gillespie; Robbie Marshall—a tireless community champion; Reece Oldfield; Riley Murphy; Stephen Evans; Janine Keech; Sam Price; John Kirk; Glen Spackman; and Jess Rogers.
The Rylstone-Kandos show was a wonderful community event. I was there working on a booth with Sandy Walker and Margaret Reid. It was a wonderful event, full of community spirit and community members, and it is a tribute to them. Lloyd Coleman was there—I need to make mention of him. Congratulations to our country show volunteers.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): In accordance with standing order 193 the time for member's constituency statements has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (11:01): In December last year my parliamentary colleagues in the Joint Standing Committee on Human and Rights and I began a series of public hearings, visiting every capital city of the nation and tasked with two things: to examine the operation of part 2A of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and whether it imposes unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and, secondly, to look at whether the complaints-handling procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission should be reformed.
My colleague the member for Moreton has spoken to the report of the committee and, like him, I reiterate that this committee has not recommended any changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. That is because there was not overwhelming support for change demonstrated by the submissions to the inquiry, nor among the members of the committee.
The committee report has recommended adjustments to the AHRC Act, alongside an increased focus on education, with the intention that such efforts would prevent drawn-out conflicts that serve only to cause pain and injury to both complainants and respondents. I think this is sensible reform.
As a new parliamentarian, it was a revelation to witness the fortitude of people as they committed to speak before a federal parliamentary committee, as part of the formality and the unintentionally-intimidating atmosphere. People attending the hearings spoke about two things—being able to live free from discrimination and being able to live a life of free expression. Sadly, I could not read all of the thousands of submissions to what has been referred to as the 'parliamentary inquiry into freedom of speech'. But after reading hundreds of submissions and after hearing from and asking questions of many witnesses directly, it soon became clear that this inquiry was about more than freedom of speech.
It became apparent very quickly that people are concerned about the impact that possible changes to the Racial Discrimination Act will have on them, their families and the wider community. I know that I have enjoyed a privileged life compared with many of those who made submissions or who appeared in front of the committee. I have never felt the sting of racism; I have never felt restrained in my freedom of speech; I have never decided to keep quiet every day at work, or at school or university lest anyone make me a target of their hurtful words—words that might be unintentionally or, sadly, deliberately hurtful. Because of this, I have never needed the protections offered by the Racial Discrimination Act. But many people do.
The inquiry heard from both individuals and groups, and despite the impression one might get from reporting in The Australian, it was not a forum dominated by academic lawyers, barristers and solicitors, former judges, former and current Human Rights Commissioners, cartoonists and journalists—useful though their contributions were. I can honestly say that the process of the inquiry was better than the broadsheet's reporting, and it reached out widely to our brilliantly diverse Australian community. We heard from Indigenous groups, multicultural associations and representatives from older migrant groups, including from the Jewish, Greek and Chinese communities. Particularly admirable and inspiring was the strength of conviction of those representing the Jewish community of Australia. This community, one that has seen the worst of racism in this world, has actively sought to protect the rights of other minorities in the Australian community. All of these people and groups took the time to write to and speak with the committee. They took the time to defend the small yet important protections that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act provides, and others provided thoughtful and constructive contributions on how the act could be amended. I thank all those who participated in this inquiry.
I am of the firm opinion that it is not in anyone's interests, and certainly not in the national interest, to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. This is an act—and a protection against racial vilification, in the form of sections 18C and 18D—that has served this nation effectively and quietly since its enactment in 1996. It should be left to its efficient devices. Fewer than 100 disputes in the Federal Court in 25 years, and thousands of disputes resolved in private conciliation, speak for themselves. It is true that some people have suffered in the administration of the RDA. I acknowledge their hardships, just as I acknowledge the pain and hardships of the thousands of victims of racism across Australia who suffer every single day of their lives. We would all like the law to be perfect. We would like every law to be perfect. But seeking perfection at the price of diminishing protections provided to the vulnerable is not worth the price.
It is well and good to theorise about freedom of speech, but this must be done from a position that is inclusive of all members of society. Merely considering the views of the most privileged in society on how they feel they are oppressed in their freedom of speech is absurd. This is so when you consider their voices in the media, their access to the media, their ownership of the media. It is especially absurd when you meet and speak with committee witnesses representing multicultural and Indigenous groups from across the country and hear the lived experience of racism. I want to highlight something Dr Jackie Huggins, a co-convenor of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, said to the committee:
Particularly for Aboriginal people since the 1967 referendum right through to the Racial Discrimination Act, there have been some protections around the call out of racism. We have felt very much that section 18C should not be changed or tampered with, because it is very much speech and beliefs and opinions that are quite hateful and unfounded, and it does hurt very deeply. It can scar people for the rest of their lives, and sometimes Aboriginal people just wear it as a second skin because we are so used to it—so used to the call out and what we are being subjected to. Unfortunately, it is just one of those things we live with, like chronic diseases and dying 10 years earlier than other Australians et cetera. But, for a very small minority group, we still believe that we are here and we have survived, and we just live every day with racism.
Dr Huggins was not alone in expressing the sentiment that victims of racism wear a second skin, be they Indigenous or of ethnic origins. The words of Dr Huggins have affected me deeply, and I thank her for them.
As a white Australian who sits in this parliament and who participated in this committee and this inquiry, I have felt very sad at times that this parliament and the government of this country should require people to defend, in written submissions and before us in person, the protections offered to them under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Is this what we do now? If this is what we do, I think we should really review our priorities. As a witness in Darwin reflected, it is outrageous that this parliament is having this conversation about lessening protections against racism, when multiple studies show we have a serious race relations problems in this country. Ms Penelope Taylor commented:
There are thousands of incidents every day that could become a case but are not being reported because people are marginalised, disempowered or voiceless.
Why aren't we talking about these people? That is my question. Why aren't we talking about the voiceless in our society? I do not want to downplay the importance of freedom of speech in an open and democratic society, but I think some leaders in our community could do with getting out a little bit more and getting some kind of grip on the reality of racism in Australia.
As a country, we need to be a bit more generous of spirit to those in our community who take comfort knowing Australia has a law that protects them, even though they do not necessarily choose to enforce it and even though that law might not be perfect. The debate on freedom of speech in Australia is at best one-sided. At all times it seems to me to be a debate among elites with all the voice they could wish for and those who either fight to be heard or stay quiet for fear of being demonised because of their race or ethnicity. I hope we can work together to change this imbalance into the future.
My work on this inquiry has been both difficult and rewarding. It has been difficult to hear people's lived experiences of discrimination. It has been rewarding to hear witnesses tell their stories. The legal debate has also been enlightening. The committee worked together these past weeks, and I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their equal commitment to this inquiry. I acknowledge the member for Berowra, who is here today as well. I enjoyed our company and the conversations we had. I thank, in particular, the secretariat of the committee for their dedication and commitment to the complex task they managed with the utmost professionalism. The work you do—and, I must add, that of the colleagues who assist all other committees in this place—is essential to the operation of the parliament, and I thank you for it. I also thank the parliament for this opportunity.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (11:09): I too am a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I acknowledge my friend the member for Brand, thank her for her comments and say that I enjoyed working on the committee with her also.
I rise to speak today in support of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee's report marks a historic breakthrough in what has been a long and difficult debate on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Section 18C has been an intractable political issue since 2011. Both sides of the debate have dug into their trenches around the principles of freedom of speech and the need for protection from serious abuse on the basis of race. For the first time, this report provides a path to fix the problems with section 18C, while maintaining its important role as a limited protection against serious racial abuse.
Since last November the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has been conducting an inquiry into the operation and administration of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act. The inquiry has received submissions and heard evidence from a full range of interested parties, including complainants, respondents, jurists, academics, administrators, news organisations and Indigenous and ethnic communities. In total the inquiry received more than 11,000 submissions and heard evidence from 100 witnesses. The great success of this inquiry is that it has revealed the underlying problem that has fuelled the debate on section 18C—that is, that the problem lies with the way the law has been administered, and on that point there is bipartisan consensus.
The process for handling section 18C complaints as it currently stands can be slow and onerous for respondents and is at odds with the case law. The threshold for making a complaint is so low it is virtually redundant. The problem with having such a poor administrative process is that it makes section 18C seem to nonexperts to be much broader than it actually is. The way the law has been administered, including the extremely low threshold for making a complaint—sometimes only one line dashed off in an email—has totally undermined the original intent of the provision. The ability to make complaints based on little information, almost a year after an action was taken—as in the QUT case—has understandably warped the public perception of 18C, which was always designed to be a very limited protection available for the most serious type of complaint.
Over the course of our inquiry, we have heard from scores of people who, despite having vastly different views on section 18C, have all agreed that the complaints-handling process needs to be fixed—or, as some put it to us, the process is the punishment. The QUT case illustrated the problems with the administration of the law. During the inquiry, we heard from some of the students, who shared with us the terrible story: not knowing a complaint had been laid against them for a year, being hauled before the commission and then taken to court. Over a period of years, they incurred significant cost in time, money and damage to reputation, only to have the complaint brought against them struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
We also heard from the cartoonist Bill Leak, who spoke of the stress and anxiety he suffered throughout the process, despite the clear artistic exemption that should have seen the complaint rejected instantly. The need for process reform has been raised by all comers in the debate. For instance, Ms Helen Kapalos, chair of the Victorian Multicultural Commission, made the following comments about focusing on process change:
I think you are absolutely right in endorsing a stronger process and looking at the complaint-handling mechanism …
The President of the Federation of Indian Associations of New South Wales, Dr Yadu Singh, appeared before the committee and noted that the QUT case highlighted problems with the process. He told the committee:
… I believe the Australian Human Rights Commission Act should be amended so that the complaint-handling process could be streamlined.
The Institute of Public Affairs has been a vocal supporter of repealing section 18C and has conceded that process changes would be an improvement in the law. Even the commission itself recognised the need for changes to the way the law is administered. The process changes recommended by the committee's report will address these problems identified by the hard cases like QUT and Bill Leak and make sure that they do not happen again.
On this point I would like to note the comments of Tony Morris QC in today's Australian. Tony Morris is the lawyer for the QUT students. He is a hero to many fair-minded Australians for offering his services pro bono to the students. Tony Morris is a supporter of the repeal of section 18C, but his contribution illustrates why the reforms to the complaint-handling process are so important. I want to draw the attention of the House to those comments because they are very, very significant. Mr Morris told The Australian:
When you analyse all the impediments that they—
And, in this, he means the committee—
are putting in the way of someone making an unjustified complaint, the reality is they are putting an end to the industry. The recommendations are not what some of us who oppose 18C wanted, but I suspect they will do the job.
The Australian noted:
Mr Morris said that if the recommendations were introduced, a complaint similar to those against the QUT students would go nowhere. "The best part is the combined effect of all the protections they are proposing to put in for respondents to complaints," he said.
"If the report’s recommendations are adopted, it will lead to a level playing field so that respondents enjoy rights similar to complainants."
Tony Morris's intervention in this debate is highly significant. We can all take a philosophical position on either side of this issue, but what this committee report does is address the practical concerns raised by the QUT and Bill Leak cases. Taking a practical approach provides us with a way forward for the first time in six years. I encourage all members to consider the report and reflect on it carefully.
Some commentators have suggested that the recommendations do not do anything. Might I suggest that they have a closer look at the report, as the recommendations dealing with complaints handling are highly significant. The recommendations will do a number of things. First, they raise the threshold for complaints so that less serious matters will not warrant consideration by the commission. Specifically, any complaint will be required to allege an act which, if true, could constitute unlawful discrimination. It will set out the need for sufficient details of the allegation, and a lodgement fee will be required to be lodged with the commission. This will set a deterrent for nuisance cases. Penalties will be introduced for legal practitioners who institute complaints that have no reasonable prospect of success and for legal practitioners or complainants who act unreasonably in the process. Second, the processes are designed to create a more level playing field by empowering the commission to give reasonable assistance to respondents to match its current powers for dealing with complaints and complainants, and by imposing time limits on the complaints-handling process—in particular, for notifying respondents. Third, the recommendations give the commission greater powers to terminate complaints, allowing the commission to terminate earlier and expanding the grounds so that a complaint can be terminated if it is assessed to be unwarranted or have no reasonable prospect of success. Fourth, the recommendations will also restrict access to the courts following a complaint's termination by the commission by requiring complainants to seek leave of the court and to provide security for costs before commencing proceedings. Finally, the recommendations will create greater accountability, providing parliamentary oversight for the Human Rights Commission, which has become a law unto itself in the minds of many.
The recommendations are groundbreaking for what they will achieve. First and foremost, they will get 18C off the front pages and allow it to perform its intended function as a limited but effective protection against racial hatred, they will place the onus on the Human Rights Commission and on lawyers operating in this area to get the process right, and they will help bolster freedom of speech by limiting the types of complaints that are deemed worthy of further consideration by the commission.
I know that this report was criticised yesterday for providing the government with options for dealing with 18C, reflecting the diversity of opinion on a bipartisan committee. To be clear, my own preferred option is to codify the test set out by Justice Kiefel in 2001 and repeatedly applied for the last 16 years: that 18C refers to discrimination which must have 'profound and serious effects, not to be likened to mere slights'. Such a codification will help the public understanding that the words in section 18C have not been given their natural and ordinary meaning but rather that they apply to a more limited range of complaints.
But I want to be crystal clear here: the root cause of the problem is that the legislation has not been administered properly. The way in which the legislation has been applied by the Human Rights Commission has allowed nuisance complaints to be treated with the same level of consideration as serious complaints. When you look at the problem forensically, try to uncover the root cause and try to properly diagnose so you can prescribe the required medicine, all the evidence indicates that the process is the problem. That is why we have recommended significant and serious process changes. Should these recommendations be adopted, they will go a very long way to bridging the gulf between the public perception of what the legislation does and the reality of its legal application.
It is important that we provide some protection against the worst types of hate speech. Though freedom of speech is fundamental to any democratic society, the Anglo-Australian tradition is not one of unrestrained free speech. The case law on section 18C is settled. It has provided a limited but important protection against Holocaust denial and serious racial abuse against Indigenous people and ethnic communities. At the same time, the defences in section 18D have been described by Professor Adrienne Stone as 'a set of defences which have no equal in their extensiveness in any law anywhere in the world', and they have allowed fair and reasonable public comment and artistic expression through cartoons and satire.
The real problem has been the process. For the first time in six years, we have bipartisan support in this parliament to fix it. Section 18C should go back to being a limited protection from the very worst kind of behaviour: an 'In case of emergency, break glass' provision, which is what it was always intended to be. I commend the report to this House.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:19): I have to say that I have just had an experience that I never thought I would have. I did. I felt like I was standing in the coalition party room and hearing a speech on your side of the debate. I thank you for it, because I cannot really disagree with anything that was said by my friend and colleague the member for Berowra.
An honourable member: You are very generous.
Mr HILL: I am very generous. But I think it is fair to say that there are some reasonable people opposite on this side of the debate. I read the report last night, because this is a matter in which I have great interest as an Australian and a legislator, and also as someone who represents in this parliament a community—a seat—where 53 per cent of people were born in another country. This is of great relevance to my electorate and in the daily lives of the people I represent. I read the report and I actually cracked up laughing last night. I read the recommendations and my staffer, hearing me shrieking with laughter on the couch, said, 'What on earth is wrong?' I said: 'After all this fanfare, all the forests felled by The Australian newspaper, the 500,000-plus words on this we have had—Crikey actually counted them for us—after all the drumbeats from the monkey pod that we were going to let the racists unleash and say whatever they wanted to say, the answer is "the process." Who knew there is nothing wrong with the law? We don't need to change the law. After six years of scaring the bejesus out of multicultural Australia and people who live in my electorate, it is the process. Fantastic!' When you strip it away, the report really says nothing. It is like the government. It goes on and on, and there is no point to it. It is a great disappointment.
It is fair to say that what the member for Berowra said about the process changes is reasonable. Sure, but it is like reading a report by a business process consultant that you hire—not one of the top-tier consulting firms, but those mid-tier ones when you want a lower daily rate for them to come in and do really bleedingly obvious stuff to re-engineer your processes and give them a bit of an overhaul. But that is the report. Now, of course, if the Attorney-General actually had a relationship with the Human Rights Commissioner and actually had some decency to sit down with Professor Triggs and listen like a normal minister—
A government member: She isn't the Human Rights Commissioner. Do your research.
Mr HILL: Sure; thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Order!
Mr HILL: If there were actually a conversation going in the normal business of government, many of these issues would have been fixed. They would not have needed a parliamentary inquiry with 420 submissions, nine days of public hearings over several months all over the country, and 200 pages. They could have just done it as the normal business of government, because many of these suggestions are exactly what they have been calling for. Fantastic—the parliament agrees. The only omission in the report in that sense is an apology to her for the way that many members opposite, particularly your senators, have spoken to her and treated her when she appears in this place to do her job.
With regard to 18C, there is no case for change. The report makes that clear. The best those opposite could come up with was to say, 'Well, on one hand, someone said this, and on the other hand, someone said that. But we don't need to do anything, because there is no problem with the law.' Section 18C is settled jurisprudence. The deputy secretary of the Attorney-General's Department said so. He quoted Justice Kiefel: only 'profound and serious effects', not 'mere slights', can be prosecuted under this law. The deputy secretary also said:
… any time you change a judicially well understood set of terms, you will create an incentive … to then relitigate …
So fiddling around with these words is a fantasy from the IPA: 'We will cross this word out and we will add this word in. Maybe we will write "harass" instead of "insult." That will be cute; we have done something.' All that would do is cause another decade of legal cases to try and figure out what the parliament meant by that word change. It is completely unnecessary.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:24 to 11:47
Mr HILL: We have established that there is no case for change. Despite this, for years and years the government has been intent on scaring multicultural Australia. This is not an intellectual exercise, much as it may feel so to the IPA, writing their little essays on their whiteboards or wherever the collective brain cell resides. People are genuinely scared.
During this debate—in December, I think—I hosted a public meeting in Dandenong, along with the member for Isaacs. We had, at very short notice, about 250 people turn up. It was advertised publicly on Facebook, not stacked with supporters. We heard tale after tale of real-life racism that people in our communities experience. As the member for Brand was saying, that is something we could be talking about. We heard people complain that their community groups, which used to get support from the Human Rights Commission for antiracism campaigns, have no funding and support. Instead, the government's resources and the parliament's time are diverted to this intellectual frolic of thinking, 'How can we water down the race protection laws so that people can say more racist things?'
It is not just because stuff happens in society. We also heard from people who directly related the racist incidents that they had experienced on the street and on the bus to these inquiries. Leadership matters. People in society, human beings, take their signals as to what is acceptable behaviour from their leaders. It may not seem that way, given the way we behave here at times, but people in the community take cues from political leaders. People in schools take cues from leaders of schools. And this parliament spending year after year debating whether it is okay to say more racist things has real-world impacts in the community. Funnily enough, not one person at that public meeting—not one person—spoke up in favour of watering down 18C.
At a political level we have no resolution for the government. The government MPs , as you can see from this report, could not agree on a position. They are hopelessly divided. As Australia knows, they are out of touch. This is not a barbecue stopper. Even the Deputy Prime Minister admitted, yesterday, that when people in his electorate drag him into a shed—goodness only knows what happens then; the proverbial shed—they do not talk to him about this.
This is not a priority for people in the real world, outside the right wing of the Liberal Party. People on our side and in my community want to know where their jobs are coming from. They want to know how their kids are going to get a decent education when school funding is cut: $29 million my electorate will lose, when the Gonski money goes. They want to know how their kids can go to hospital. They want to know how we are going to compromise—like grown-ups—and put the budget back on a sustainable path. But no, the government is arguing over how to let people say more racist things.
What happens now with 18C? Unfortunately, people must still be concerned despite the fact this report paints no case for change. Given we are in a coalition party room meeting, it is up to the Prime Minister, apparently. And that atmosphere is febrile. The member for Berowra explained to us that the debate is finished. It is over. The report has killed it. I do not know whether he has talked to Senator Paterson who has said, 'We're going! The case has been made out. We're going to fight to the death.'
It's kind of like the zombie budget cuts, isn't it?—except you can kill a zombie. You have to cut their brains out. It is hard to get through the cranium but you can kill a zombie. Unfortunately, it appears there is no brain cell in the government, so you cannot kill these measures. We could go on with the other analogies: the Monty Python dead parrot and the knights who say, 'Nae, T'is but a flesh wound.' They might say, 'We've taken a bit off the right wing of the Liberal Party but still we go on.' This is red meat to the base.
When you sit on our side of the chamber and look across, you see behind the Prime Minister a reasonable balance of modern Australia. You have some women—and then you look around and there is this whole segment where you see the same bloke. Sometimes he is 30, sometimes he is 40 and sometimes he is 50, but it is the same white bloke in a blue suit having this intellectual debate about whether people should be allowed to say more racist things in our communities.
Perhaps this report will actually be good enough. Perhaps, for once, the chair of the committee will not be a misnomer. What else did we learn from the report? We learnt that the case for change its about what is unsaid, apparently. It is a chilling effect. Have you got the little emails that are coming in now? They are: 'The last desperate cry of the IPA'? 'Someone's pressed a button,' and 'There's a chilling effect.' But what did the inquiry hear? Multiple witnesses, when pressed, could not provide even one example of things that could not be published. Hundreds of thousands of cartoons. One complaint. One person said, 'Well, there were a few Andrew Bolt articles that we probably reconsidered.'
That probably shows the law is working fine, if it gets people to stop and think before firing off more racist rants. There is nothing of substance. Racism is always about—and Australia is no different—most people are good and some are racist. We forget the lessons of history at our peril. Racist hate speech drives racist violence, and these laws must stay.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:53): There is nothing better than the opportunity to speak about the importance of free speech and to follow the diatribe before, because the member there has a privileged right as a member of this place to get up and say whatever he likes. But he won't afford the same privilege to others. In fact, he uses the opportunity and the platform he has been given to judge people based on the colour of their skin and not the content of their character. Isn't that exactly what he claims—he claims—he is trying to stand up against? That is the problem. At the heart of the ALP they play identity politics. They focus on points of division rather than points of unity. They make a mockery of universal human rights and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
I welcome this report and the recommendations that have come out of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I do so because I am a Liberal. And we believe in free speech. We believe in free speech because it is the foundation of a free society, democracy and dignity of the individual. If you ever want to bring that into question, go and read the great Sir Robert Menzies, and particularly his second and third forgotten people speeches. He spoke explicitly about free speech and how it is not just at the core of liberalism because it focuses on individual dignity but also because it is central to the operations of a democracy. That is why we must preserve it and that is why we must protect it.
But, I acknowledge that a serious concern has been raised by people who support either the current version of this law or equally some form of reform law into the future, and that is that we must always protect people against harassment in society—we must. If we are to preserve people's dignity equally, people have to be able to live their life in freedom and free from intimidation and harassment. Frankly, I do not think it should be limited just to issues of race—I think exactly the same principle should apply to people based on their gender, their disability, their sexual orientation or any other irrelevant issue or attribute. People have to feel safe. That is what I said in my submission to this inquiry, and that is the liberal way.
The important thing about this report is that it provides a way forward. The previous speaker was such a hypocrite in the way that he indulged—
Mr Giles: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Goldstein ought not reflect on a member, and he should withdraw.
Mr TIM WILSON: For the sake of brevity and expediency I will withdraw.
Mr Giles: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member should just withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): I ask the member to withdraw.
Mr TIM WILSON: I shall therefore withdraw, but I stress again that the previous speaker said that the report said that there was no issue with the law and it did not need to be changed. Then he talked extensively about how he supports the recommendations that recommend changing the process in the law. With all due respect, I think there is an inconsistency—I am sure I am allowed to say that. I think what we should be doing, as the member for Berowra said before the recent division, is look at how we can reform the law in a practical and sensible way, particularly around supporting recommendation (3) and its option of removing 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' for the term 'harassment'. I have just made the case why—because the law should treat everybody equally. I make no apology for standing up for that fundamental principle of liberalism. That is what I said in my submission to the inquiry—that we should set a standard that applies to people consistently.
I also support it because it was the foundation of the introduction of the law in the first place. People forget this. Often Labor and others outside this place remark that the introduction of 18C was preceded by three independent inquiries that recommended the current law. That is fundamentally untrue. Section 18C was introduced in 1994 by then Attorney-General Michael Lavarch. Lavarch said 18C was necessary because three major inquiries had found gaps—the National Inquiry into Racist Violence, the Australian Law Reform Commission's report into multiculturalism and the law, and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It is true, there were three inquiries—but before they are used as a justification people should actually read them.
The royal commission did not recommend the current law—it recommended a law prohibiting 'racial violence, discrimination or hostility.' The ALRC inquiry recommended 'making incitement to racist hatred and hostility unlawful.' Even then, though, one of the ALRC Commissioners dissented, saying:
… in a democratic and pluralist society freedom of expression is of special importance which may necessitate tolerance of obnoxious and hateful views which do not incite violence.'
Critically, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's inquiry into racist violence recommended a civil offence against incitement of racial hostility, an express prohibition on racist harassment as well as a federal criminal offence against racial violence. The commission also recommended the creation of the offence of incitement to racial violence. None of the three inquiries—none—recommended making offensive, insulting or humiliating speech unlawful. That is not just my conclusion—that was the conclusion of the Parliamentary Library in its Bills Digest, where it identified:
… the Racial Hatred Bill 1994 is in some aspects completely contrary to the recommendations of these three reports.
The Bills Digest went on to say that the standards set by these inquiries 'involve a high threshold of serious conduct' yet 18C 'establishes a civil offence with the significantly lower threshold'. These three reports recommend the law rightly focused on harassment, hostility and violence, which is at the core of the recommendations that have just been handed down, in recommendation 3 as one of its options—to actually go back to what Labor thought they argued for in the first place but got wrong.
In arguing for the law at the time, the Attorney-General also said:
The bill places no new limits on genuine public debate. Australians must be free to speak their minds, to criticise actions and policies of others and to share a joke. The bill does not prohibit people from expressing ideas or having beliefs, no matter how unpopular the views may be to many other people.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: Respectfully to the member who has interjected, it was the former Labor Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, who said that—again, not me. Similar sentiments were echoed in a 1994 article in The Age newspaper arguing for the law. According to its advocates, 'Most Australians would sympathise with the aims of the bill,' as I do, 'namely, to control racist violence, threats and harassment.' We can be sure that that was true then, and it remains true today, including by all of the people who support a constructive change in the law. The article went on to say that the law will apply to:
… the skinhead on the street yelling racist names and other insults at an Asian man, or a woman in traditional Islamic dress, not newspaper articles or anti-immigration pamphlets.
Any objective assessment says that that test has now proven to be false, even if it has been unintentionally. It may appear that the insidious nature of the law has been revealed only in recent cases, but that is wrong. It was controversial when it was first introduced. There is a speech worth reading from the time. As the previous speaker said, sometimes you have one of those moments that you do not think you are ever going to have; I am going to recommend a speech by a member of the Australian Greens. Australian Greens senator Christabel Chamarette said at the time that the broad scope of the law would:
… create a crime of words. This will take the legislation across a certain threshold into the realm of thought police …
That is stronger than most criticism raised by 18C's critics today. How far the Greens have truly fallen.
It is in its present form that 18C has more in common with antiblasphemy laws in theocracies than it does, frankly, with other federal laws dealing specifically with public speech. When you put into context just how bad it is—and there are so many things I have yet to say—it becomes clear that it is a complete aberration, because there is no equivalent provision on the basis of people with a disability; there is no equivalent provision on the basis of people's gender or sexual orientation.
The reality is—I have used examples like this before, which are rooted in reality—if you establish a test around harassment, I am quite relaxed about that, because the reality is that there are times where people get attacked on the basis of people's culture in other minority groups. When that happens, 18C creates a legal shield for them to not be able to stand up and call out other people's bigotry. This, in the end, is the frustration I have. Let us have a law that applies to everybody. Let us have a law that respects everybody equally. Let us not create an environment where some people enjoy special legal privileges and other people do not. In the end, it is time to cut the cancer out of the middle of this law and replace 'offend, insult and humiliate' with 'harassment' so that we can have a racial discrimination act that enjoys the confidence of the whole Australian public.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (12:03): Those in this place and outside of it who call to water down Australia's protections against racial hate speech are much more concerned with privilege and entitlement than they are with freedom of speech. But do not take my word for it. That case was very clearly made out by the previous speaker, the former commissioner of the Australian Human Rights Commission, the member for Goldstein, in an extraordinary contribution that delved deep into his psyche and its parallel universe and did not explore the reality of Australian communities today—in particular, the realities experienced by many of the people I represent who are members of the culturally and linguistically diverse communities that make this country such a great country to live in. These are people who, all too often, are diminished by the actions of others—people who depend on leadership in this place, leadership by political leaders, but also on lawmaking that respects them and their culture and their background. For the whole time I have been in this place, this has been a hurtful and divisive, and often dishonest, debate in this parliament and in the Australian community.
It is interesting that we stand here debating this today, on 1 March, because this is a day which is supposed to be about zero tolerance for disharmony. I guess in one respect we see a marker there, in that, through three years of hurt and division—and indeed, for the government, distraction—we have seen two things emerge. One is that today, as back in 2013, we have Liberal and National party members hopelessly divided over this issue, as evidenced in the debate around the report and as evidenced in the conversation that continues around its reception and the steps that we may take beyond it. But, more substantively of course, we now see what we have said all along—that no case can be made fairly to change 18C and 18D. That is what we know.
We have had three years of division fostered by this government, whether led by the member for Warringah or kind of cobbled together by his successor, the member for Wentworth. Three years—and throughout that time, in the Scullin electorate there has been really deep concern around these proposals. I was so pleased that, in the last parliament, the member for Isaacs came and spent time with me and a range of communities in the suburb of Thomastown to work through concerns at public meetings. As the member for Bruce put it, in the meetings that he attended there was a unanimity of purpose, but also a concern—a concern that has been expressed by many people on this side of the House as we have had the interminable debates around these issues.
I am very pleased that the member for Watson, the shadow minister, is here, because he has made this point over and over again, and it has not been effectively responded to. I would submit it has not been effectively responded to because it cannot be. That is to pose this question: what exactly is it that these people want to be allowed to say that they cannot say now? How do they wish to be able to describe people who are different from them that they cannot do today, and why would they choose to do so? If I may go beyond the member for Watson's question of why they would choose to do so, why would they choose to treat some Australians as somehow less than others? Why would they choose to tear up more than 40 years of the Racial Discrimination Act and 25 years of very effective protections that have served Australia well?
When we talk about how they have served Australia well, it is important to think about the wider context within which we are conducting this debate. It is a context where there are divisive forces beyond this parliament that are seeking to turn Australians against each other. I am so proud of Australians' support for multiculturalism, but there are concerning signs. If you have regard to the work that the Scanlon Foundation and the Lowy Institute have been doing, we show that in communities across Australia there is strong support for multiculturalism, but the support is softening as licence has been given for people to treat people differently on the basis of their racial background. These are concerns that resonate deeply in the communities that I am so proud to represent. That is why I made a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry, as did the member for Goldstein—because standing up for the diverse communities of Melbourne's northern suburbs, and indeed the diverse communities that make up Australia today more generally, is something that is important to me and is something that is very important to my constituents.
I suspect the member for Goldstein may have spent some more time on his submission than I did; I did not make a very long submission, because there is not really a lot to say. If we believe that all Australians are equal, we also recognise that they should be treated equally. And anyone who has had any opportunity to represent any part of Australia in public life knows that there are forces—too often fuelled with their own privilege, with their own sense of entitlement—who seek to use the power that they have to push down others and to divide communities. That is the ill that these provisions recognise. Recognising that racism is something that is completely unacceptable, it sets a standard—a standard at law that should also be a standard that we all practice in this place. So in considering this report let us all be mindful to stand up for all Australians, regardless of how we treat the specifics of the report that is before us.
In turning to the report, it is a pretty weighty document, so I acknowledge that many members put a great deal of work into this. The recommendations, in significant part, are worthy of adoption, but there are a couple of things that need to be said. Firstly—of course, they are not novel. I will turn briefly to the remarks of the member for Berowra in this regard in a moment. They are process-driven changes that do not go to the substance. They do not go to any of the soaring rhetoric of the so-called freedom-of-speech lobbyists. Freedom-of-speech lobbyists are unconcerned about other restrictions on freedom of speech, such as those contained in employment arrangements, and they are certainly not worried about the tort of defamation. In fact the evidence is that they are pretty keen on that. They are pretty keen on those constraints but, again, this is a debate not about freedom of speech; it is a debate about privilege and power.
The member for Berowra talked about the recommendations being groundbreaking. Really? If they are so groundbreaking, why was he not paying attention to Commissioner Triggs when she was making the case for most of these changes? Let's reflect on how Commissioner Triggs has been treated by this government—in the most appalling manner. The member also talked about his aspiration—and there is no doubt that it is a genuine one—to end the division, but I cannot share his confidence. I do not think that this debate ends here, I really do not.
The member for Bruce touched on the weird experience we had, sitting in a coalition party room debate. I said 'experience'; I do not think I could call this a privilege! But the weirdest bit of the whole thing was not that we were witnesses to it, it was that we appeared to have greater insight into the operation of the coalition party room than the poor member for Berowra!
This is not over. Senator Paterson has made it clear and other speakers in this debate may also make it clear that this is not over. The fight to stand up for diversity and the fight to stand for reasonable and proven protections against racist hate speech does not end today, or add any such time that the government changes administrative or legislative arrangements around the operation of these provisions. I should be very clear—and I know that you will share this aspiration, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—that on this side of the House we stand with a singular resolve: to stand with and for those communities, however long it takes.
This has been a disturbing experience in Australian public life. The hysteria with which some of the advocates for reform of 18C and 18D have carried on their aggressive agenda has been quite extraordinary. They refer to the 'chilling' effect. I cannot think of any public policy issue that has received a more disproportionately large coverage in relation to its practical, positive impact than this one. The Australian newspaper must have been licensed by the IPA, and I hope the IPA have done well out of the content they have provided.
But, in ending my remarks on this issue, this has been a debate about privilege and entitlement. It has also been a debate about power. We stand for power to be distributed equally in Australia, and never to be determined on the basis of someone's racial or cultural background.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (12:13): I rise today also to speak about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and its report on the freedom of speech in Australia, particularly as it pertains to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
I note that this is a fraught issue, with many stakeholders and with many submissions, and I acknowledge the diversity of opinion. I think that is a very good thing; it reflects a healthy Australian society. The fact that we are having this debate here is also an indicator that we have a healthy, functioning democracy.
There are a number of things that I want to say up-front, because those opposite have misconstrued many of our positions with words like 'divisive' and 'hysteria'. I want to make it very clear where I stand, so I want to lift the bonnet a bit on my thinking before I get to 18C itself. I am not a libertarian, but I am a Liberal, which is to say that I am committed to freedom: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of enterprise and a whole host of freedoms that we hold dear in this country. Of course, today we are talking about freedom of speech.
I am going to quote John Donne and, at risk of sounding terribly heteronormative, I am going to use the original words of his poem:
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
Freedom only makes sense in the context of community. We do not live in isolation from each other in this country. We have constant exchange with our neighbours. We have a mutual dependence upon each other, which is why we come together to form local, state and federal governments. That reflects our search for order and our desire to secure our collective freedoms. Government is especially important when we come together to do tasks that we cannot do ourselves, especially in emergencies. So I just want to make clear that I am not a libertarian; I am a Liberal, and I believe in limited government, in the separation of powers and in the diffusion of power. That is why our Westminster system, I think, is the best system of government in the world, and I am proud that Australia has that as our system of government.
But alongside those freedoms and rights come responsibilities. As I said, we have a mutual dependence upon each other. At the heart of our democracy is the volunteer spirit. In an ideal world, every Australian would self-regulate or self-govern, but of course that is not true. But it does raise the question: what role does government have in our lives? Is it the supporting act or is it the main protagonist? I am of the view that it is the supporting act, and my point about 18C is that it ultimately is symbolic of government overreach. It is government overreach interfering in the lives of individual Australians and regulating one of our most basic freedoms, which is freedom of speech.
I also want to be very clear on my anthropology, my view of humankind. I believe that all people are endowed with respect and inherent worth and dignity, whatever their race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex or sexuality. It does not matter: everyone is deserving of respect, because we are all endowed with inherent worth. I want to state that upfront very clearly. I also believe that a healthy civic society means that government can step back out of our lives. We call these mediating institutions or prepolitical institutions, and every single electorate has them. We start with the family and we work outwards to clubs—sporting clubs, Rotary clubs, Surf Life Saving clubs—churches, temples, mosques, schools and charities—you name it. They are in every single electorate around this country, and I believe they should be the first line of defence against discriminatory speech. They should be the first line of defence. I would rather see them empowered than big government interfering in people's lives, which I think is what has been the case with the exercise of 18C. Of course, in my electorate, and I am sure around the country, people have disengaged from civic society, so this is a task that all Australians should be engaged in: to rebuild a strong civic society.
Back to the topic of the Racial Discrimination Act and 18C. This is part of the question: what sort of a society do we want? Do we want one regulated by the state, or do we want one regulated by the citizenry? Do we want the state as the main protagonist or the supporting act? I think we have seen with the QUT case and the Bill Leak case that 18C has allowed vexatious litigation to creep into our society, where people are being inhibited in the exercise of their freedom of speech. We are seeing creeping political correctness across the board. We are seeing it in universities and schools. Not every Australian fully understands what 18C means, but for a lot of people it is emblematic of that creeping state interference and political correctness.
George Orwell wrote a famous essay, 'Politics and the English language', and in that he argued that language and thought are intimately related, so if we are to truly exercise freedom of conscience we need to have the freedom to exercise our speech as well. Of course, 'If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,' as he famously made clear. If we have the state regulating our speech, you also have the state regulating our thought, and I think that looks a lot like 1984, another great book by George Orwell.
The cases that have been litigated under 18C have caused a lot of psychological stress and trauma to those involved and also significant financial cost. I think of Bill Leak. You may not like Bill Leak's cartoons, and that is fine. I find them funny. I have found some of his cartoons to be very risque and found that they push the boundaries, but that is who he is. I want to acknowledge that after the 'Je suis Charlie'attacks in January 2015 he had the courage to do a cartoon in which he illustrated the Prophet Mohammed. Whatever you may think of that, he showed significant courage. He had to relocate his home because of death threats to him on the internet. I find it rather ironic in a free society that when he published a cartoon—whatever you might think of that cartoon—he was then pursued under 18C for that cartoon. What the terrorists themselves could not achieve in a free society, we had a mechanism of government for, which was used to pursue him for another cartoon of his. I think that is just unacceptable.
I turn to the report itself and recommendation 1. I approve of recommendation 1, which recommends addressing racism in Australian society. Absolutely we need to address racism. We need to address racism in all the mediating institutions that I just mentioned. Recommendation 2 says:
Recognising the profound impacts of serious forms of racism, the committee recommends that leaders of the Australian community and politicians exercise their freedom of speech to identify and condemn racially hateful and discriminatory speech where it occurs in public.
I affirm that absolutely. In fact, I copped a flogging on Facebook a couple of weeks ago after Larry Pickering's comments at the Q Society. I condemned his remarks. I condemned him for what he said about gay people and I condemned him for what he said about Islamic State and their barbarous acts in Iraq and Syria. A lot of people said I overstepped the mark. Great! I am happy for that. I enjoyed the flogging, in a sense, because it was another healthy indicator that democracy is alive and well and everyone can have their point of view.
I now turn to recommendation 3, and specifically to where it says:
(c) removing the words 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' from section 18C and replacing them with 'harass'; I think we need to do that. My colleague Senator James Paterson last night said that in this parliament we have a unique opportunity, a pathway where we have consensus around some of these recommendations. I recognise that this parliament is a tough one. It is rather austere from a legislative point of view. It is difficult to get legislation through. But I think we can all agree, on the evidence, that the QUT case, the Bill Leak case and others are a step too far. We absolutely need to reform the legislation. Politics is the art of the possible. I would rather not have 18C at all. I know that is not going to be achieved, but I do think we need to make changes. We need to make the threshold much higher to avoid the vexatious litigation that we have seen.
Ultimately, as I said, I am a Liberal, so I am going to err on the side of individual liberty. I hope that my fellow Australians are committed to a united country that is not divisive; that can preserve freedom and also ensure that the responsibilities of individual citizens are enforced and met. Section 18C has a chilling effect and we need reform. That is why I endorse it.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:23): I have to say I find aspects of this debate like entering an alternative universe. When people come to parliament they look at the different challenges that are happening across Australia and choose, in different ways, the victims whose causes they will champion. Different people on both sides of the House will find people genuinely in need. But to have a situation now where there is a core group of government MPs where the victims they most want to champion, look after and try to help from their plight are racist people who are not allowed to say enough is one of the most—possibly the most—bizarre thing I have ever seen in my time as a member of parliament.
Amending a law, any law, as this committee has considered, does not happen in a vacuum. It happens from whatever the starting point is already. Any amendment that involves changing the language of sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act is not an amendment that just says, 'Okay, let's just imagine something to be consistent with other pieces of legislation.' No, it changes where the threshold is now and allows to be said things that are currently not permitted to be said. That is why during this discussion I have repeatedly—not just today in this parliament but as this debate has dragged on for months and years—continued to pose the question: if you want to change the threshold, what is it that you want people to be allowed to say that they are not allowed to say already? Because in any amendment to this section the courts will give meaning to the amendment. If the intention is to allow more so-called freedom of speech then the courts will allow to be said things that are currently not being allowed to be said.
It is no good for those opposite to say, 'Oh well, it's a Bill Leak cartoon and the situation with the QUT students,' because it has already been determined that those cases were not an offence under the act. That has been agreed. Changing the threshold does nothing for things that are already not caught by the act—that has nothing to do with it. People can make as many speeches about Bill Leak and the QUT students as they want. All they are doing is defending the current legislation. That is an argument in favour of some of the recommendations that have come through this report about streamlining processes, and Labor will have a constructive approach to streamlining processes on any piece of legislation, on any tribunal, on any court. But to say that Bill Leak and the QUT case are the problem, when it has been explicitly agreed that sections 18C and 18D combined mean those examples are not caught by it, adds nothing to the debate.
What we have seen from a number of the speakers in this debate is something that is hard to describe in terms other than those of self-entitled, born-to-rule arrogance. That is what we have seen. Most of us who have spoken in this debate—not everybody but most of us who have spoken in this debate, and me included—will go through our entire lives in Australia without ever being the target of racial abuse. It was not the case for people of my heritage 100 years ago, but it has been the case for a while. We will go through life without experiencing racial hatred targeted at us. The main way we see it is when we are in a public space and we might witness it or, more often for many people, when something is happening on a train or in a shopping centre and someone thinks to video it. What we see and are horrified to see is something that for many Australians is their lived day-to-day experience. And that is under the current law! So to people who say, 'It's just words. We need freedom of speech. It is just words; words can't harm you,' I say, 'Tell that to the woman who goes home in tears after being abused on the train because of the way she is dressed. Tell that to the child who goes home trembling after they have witnessed that treatment that their parents receive in a shopping centre. Tell them it's just words.'
These issues are real, and those opposite who argue that it is just words—it is not everybody opposite who argues that case—do not argue the same when we are talking about defamation law. They do not argue the same when we are talking about whether or not a whistle blower should be allowed to state what has happened within a government department. They do not argue the same when we are talking about whether an employee should be able to tell their story if there is an employment contract that says they are not allowed to. They certainly do not apply the same principle of 'it's all about freedom of speech' when a non-government organisation reaches a contract with the Commonwealth government and part of the contract is to prevent it from speaking out. So why do they suddenly find freedom of speech when it involves multicultural communities, when the person who will be harmed will never be them?
That is why Labor will never support any amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act where the outcome of that amendment is more racial hatred. We will never support a lowering of the benchmark in the name of consistency with other acts, because the courts will have to give meaning to it and the only outcome will be more racial hatred in Australia. We keep hearing from the P rime Minister and others—and we hear it from members of the opposition and we hear it from crossbenchers, and it is a good thing when people celebrate it—that we are the most successful multicultural country in the world, but it does not happen by accident. It happens when members of parliament prioritise the person who might be the target of racial discrimination over the bigot and when we prioritise the person who will receive the abuse over the person dishing out the abuse.
This entire debate has been brought to the parliament because we have a little ginger group within the Liberal Party party room who want to prioritise the abuser. How on earth does anyone look at the vision of someone being abused on the train and think, 'The person we need to help is the person dishing out the abuse, because they just weren't allowed to say enough'? When you have a society of people of many cultural backgrounds, there are three ways you can organise it. I use the image of how you organise food. If you separate your ingredients on the table, you have a segregation model, and no-one is proposing that. When you whack everything into the blender and expect it to come out with a puree or some sort of soup, you have an assimilation model, and we do have members of the parliament wanting that. When you create a salad where every ingredient is allowed to keep its own integrity and you get a national flavour out of it, you have a multicultural country, a multicultural Australia. And that is what used to be viewed—even under the years of the Howard government, the Fraser government before them, and certainly Labor governments—as a right and decent vision for Australia.
But now we have an Attorney-General saying there is a right to be a bigot. We have members of the Liberal Party party room seeing the key victims they want to defend in our society as being the people who just are not allowed to say enough racist things. Do not think the megaphone that people are offered in this parliament is not loud. It is really loud, and the people who need our help and protection hear what is being said. And the people who want to extol their bigotry and undermine people for their race, their cultural background and their heritage hear what is being said here as well, and they are armed by what is being said here as well. Our words matter, and the words that are said in the public square matter, and the words that are said on the train, bus or tram matter, and the words that are said in the shopping centre matter. We should never, as a parliament, look at the levels of racism that come from a small minority in this country and say, 'We want to let them say more.'
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (12:33): Thank you for the opportunity to make some comments on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' report Freedom of speech in Australia: inquiry into the operation of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is a very good report. The committee failed to reach consensus on many issues but outlined the issues in great detail.
Everyone in this parliament, certainly on my side, is passionate about freedom of speech and passionate about freedom generally. Personally, I am a huge believer in very small government. The less government we have the better, the more freedom society has the better, and the less intrusion in our lives the better. I am passionately against the rise of a politically correct culture driven by identity and gender that we see growing around us that seeks to curb free speech, that seeks to define what people can say and indeed even what they can think. I am passionately against individuals and organisations that use political institutions as political weapons, and this is happening more and more and more.
My fear is that sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act are being used as a weapon. No-one here in this parliament wants to see greater racism. Everyone is aware of the horror of what racism involves and the impact upon those who are victims of it. Protections in law exist to assist people who may be subject to such racism, and they should remain. The wider question is not one of racism, is not one of bigotry and is not one of what hate speech parliament wants to allow to be heard. That is not what this is about. This is about whether the Racial Discrimination Act is working as it should and/or whether the Australian Human Rights Commission is working as it should. Recent cases point out that one or both are failing the nation. That is what this discussion is about.
The question is not so much what should be allowed, but I think we can reflect on what should not be allowed. The QUT case is a case in point. On 28 May 2013 Wood and two other students were using a QUT computer lab, where Ms Prior, an employee of QUT, asked them whether they were Indigenous. They replied that they were not. Ms Prior then asked them to leave. Later that day, on the QUT Stalker Space Facebook page, I am led to believe, Mr Wood posted:
Just got kicked out of the unsigned Indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation…?
That was it. Ms Prior complained to QUT about these and other comments, which were promptly removed, to the university's credit. However, Ms Prior was ultimately unhappy with QUT's handling of the matter and lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. The commission conciliated Prior's complaint. However, it did not contact students directly about the complaint or the conciliation conference. Instead, it left this task to QUT. Powell did not know about Prior's complaint until after the conciliation conference. Conciliation failed. Ms Prior commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court against QUT, certain QUT employees and a number of students—Wood, Thwaites and Powell—claiming $247,570 because one of them had put on the Facebook page:
Just got kicked out of the unsigned Indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation…?
One of the lawyers on the case ran as a Labor candidate against me at the last election, hence my interest in this particular case. This was all because of an online comment not directed at Ms Prior. If you asked the average member of the community, 'Is it appropriate that students could make a statement like that and suddenly face years of political process and costs?' the answer would clearly be no. It is the sort of comment I could well have made, as I personally think the idea of segregating resources for students based on gender or identity is wrong. Because your gender or identity is different to mine, it does not mean, at a university campus, you should have access to greater amounts or higher levels of publicly funded equipment. That is not multiculturalism. That is segregation. We are all made equal in the eyes of God and we should all have equal access to public resources. No one section of the community is more important than another. Every person, regardless of race, gender, colour, disability or otherwise is absolutely and utterly equal.
A number of students settled with Ms Prior. They did not want the harassment, so they settled quietly. Others said 'No; this is wrong.' The Federal Circuit Court agreed with them. It dismissed Ms Prior's case against Alex Wood, Calum Thwaites and Jackson Powell. Judge Michael Jarrett concluded that Prior's claim against them had no reasonable prospect of success. Judge Jarrett concluded that an ordinary and reasonable member of a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, either students or generally, who had the characteristics of a member of a fair and tolerant society, would not be reasonably likely to find these statements offensive, insulting, humiliating or intimidating. Wood's statements were against both QUT and racial discrimination generally. Powell's statements, when read in the context of other comments, were 'a poor attempt at humour'. In any event, both Wood's and Powell's statements amounted to 'mere slights', therefore not meeting the threshold 18C requires. Finally, neither Wood nor Powell made their statements because of Ms Prior's race or because of the race of the relevant groups. That is the finding lawfully. Those opposite say, 'Well, this shows the system works.' Really? After three years of reputations being besmirched and smashed publicly and enormous costs, this shows it is working? This shows that something is broken. This case should have been dismissed at the start. The process itself is wrong. Even to get a dismissal application through the Australian Human Rights Commission involves the numerous filings of pleadings, affidavits, submissions, appearances and other injunctions within a court. There are imposts in terms of time, substantial money is involved and stress involved. A dispute that arose in May 2013 took until November 2016 to resolve, and those opposite say the system is apparently working fine.
The problem is either the law or the Australian Human Rights Commission, because there is a problem. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights came out with no conclusive analysis or statements regarding the law but a range of recommendations that will assist with processes—a lot of those to deal with the Australian Human Rights Commission. Nick Cater, who did an analysis from 2001 to 2005, showed that the Australian Human Rights Commission rejected 30 per cent of complainants. He also writes that under its most recent presidents, Catherine Branson and Gillian Triggs, fewer than five per cent have been rejected. Could it be that the problem is actually the Human Rights Commission and its current leadership? I note the request by many elements of the community to maintain section 18C as it is, but something has to give: either the law is not functioning as intended or those administering the law—in this case its early adoption—the Human Rights Commission, are not administering it correctly. The question is: why?
Parliament reviewed this in August 2014. The Abbott government proposed a new section in the RDA that would make it unlawful for a person to do an act that was 'reasonably likely to vilify another person or group of persons, or intimidate another person or group of persons'. This ultimately failed from lack of support. The community did not support it and the parliament did not support it. At present there is no broad consensus on the way forward with respect to the act. But I do believe there is consensus—and the report brings it out—that there are a number of changes that can be made to the way the Human Rights Commission goes about its initial work: its initial conciliation and its initial processes. Perhaps the answer is reform of the commission itself as the first step. This is only one step in continued debate, but I certainly look forward to many of the recommendations being implemented and reform of the commission occurring.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (12:42): For over 20 years, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has protected our community against racial hate speech, making it unlawful for a person to insult, humiliate, intimidate or offend someone because of their race or ethnic background.
Section 18C's sister provision, section 18D, contains extensive provisions for freedom of speech. Labor has fought to keep section 18C on our statute books against continued assault by those who would, it seems, wish to give a green light to racist hate speech in our community. Labor is very proud that a Labor government—in particular, Attorney-General Michael Lavarch in the Keating government—legislated to fulfil international obligations that Australia has had for many years and to put this protection against racist hate speech on our statute books.
What we now have in the report tabled in this parliament yesterday by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is a very, very clear consensus reached that there should not be any change to sections 18C and 18D. The human rights committee of this parliament has made a number of recommendations that suggest changes to procedure, and they have made a number of recommendations suggesting ways in which there might be better education of the Australian community against the evils of racist speech, but they have not recommended changes to section 18C and section 18D. That is a victory for those of us in this community who value a tolerant, respectful and accepting society. It is a victory against those who think that the greatest priority for an Australian government should be legislating to give a green light to racist hate speech in our country.
Sadly, this Liberal government includes a number of members who are in that group of people who think that it should be a priority for the government to legislate to give a green light to racist hate speech in our country. For more than six years now, we have had right-wing groups and right-wing members of the Liberal Party of Australia agitating for repeal of section 18C, or at least for a substantial weakening of this protection against racist hate speech. It is hard to understand the devotion of the Right to the weakening of this protection. It would seem, at times, that they want to change the law to give effect to something that was put by the Attorney-General, George Brandis, in the Senate when he said sneeringly to former senator Nova Peris:
People do have a right to be bigots, you know.
Well, not in the Australia that we would wish Australia to be, not in the Australia that we would wish the legal system to reflect—not in our Australia. We want a legal system that draws a clear line, that turns the face of our community against racist hate speech, and that pays attention to the concerns of those who are affected by racist hate speech.
The only way in which these right-wing members of the Liberal Party can possibly stand up and make the kind of ridiculous assertions that they are making—clothing it under the guise of a defence of free speech, if you please—is to ignore the repeated evidence that has been given not just to this most recent inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights but to repeated inquiries and at repeated public rallies, at repeated public demonstrations of support and at public meetings designed to make sure that we resist this push from the right wing in the Liberal Party and the fringe right-wingers who are pushing this view—fringe right-wingers like the Institute of Public Affairs. The only way that these right-wingers can push their cause is by ignoring entirely the effect of racist hate speech on ethnic communities and individuals in our society. They are willing to turn a deaf ear to people I have heard in the Indigenous communities of Australia who say things like, 'Racist speech makes us sick.' That is the position: racist speech makes us sick. So listen up, you people in the Liberal Party who are still trying to repeal section 18C or still putting forward ridiculous suggestions as to how it should be changed.
To the rest of the community of Australia I say: do not listen to the suggestion that is still being trailed by some of these right-wingers that this committee report leaves open the possibility of amendment of section 18C. All this report did was to state some possibilities. Those possibilities were all well known before the committee embarked on its inquiry; they are not more known because they have been repeated in some text in a committee report from this parliament. No, the significance of this report—and I say it clearly—is that it does not recommend any change to section 18C or section 18D. Instead, what it does—and all of the recommendations of the committee concern this—is make suggestions for changes to the complaints process and for better educating the community about the dangers of bigotry. Not one of the recommendations recommends a change to the law itself.
The committee's proposals for change to the procedure for dealing with complaints—that is, the procedures used by the Australian Human Rights Commission—are all recommendations that the Labor Party will carefully consider. I note that many of the committee's recommendations for changes to process are, in fact, recommendations that were put forward by the Australian Human Rights Commission itself. It is to be noted that the member for Banks, a member of this government, supports the committee's recommendations to improve the commission's processes, but he is strongly opposed to moves to change the substantive law. The member for Banks, earlier today, said: 'It is not the case that simply because you have vexatious claims under a law you get rid of the entire law.' He went on to say, 'There are obviously many aspects of law where vexatious claims are made, and the appropriate way of dealing with that is to address those process issues.' I agree with the member for Banks.
The vast majority of complaints that are made under section 18C to the Human Rights Commission are handled efficiently and effectively. There are not very many of them, in any given year, in the more than 20 years in which the commission has been receiving complaints under section 18C. About 100 of the 2½ thousand formal complaints that are received by the Australian Human Rights Commission, under the other acts of parliament as well that it administers, are section 18C complaints. The overwhelming majority of them are dealt with according to evidence given to the committee by the President of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, in around four months. There have been a handful of problematic cases in the 20 years that this law has been in operation, and I am confident that the problems that have been identified in these cases can be appropriately addressed by the improvements to the commission's complaint-handling processes.
There is an absurdity about the way in which these right-wing attackers of section 18C seek to make their case by referring to complaints that were dismissed. It is a nonsense to suggest that by looking at a complaint about conduct that does not contravene section 18C, somehow, it warrants a repeal of the section itself. It is like saying that because someone had a defamation case dismissed—or someone had a personal injury case dismissed or someone had any other kind of litigation dismissed—as vexatious, in some way, the law under which they sought to bring that case should itself be changed. You only have to state it properly to see the absurdity of the position that has been adopted by these attackers of 18C.
Let us be clear again: the committee has not recommended any change to section 18C or to section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act, the existing protection of free speech. The committee has not come out in support of what Senator Brandis infamously declared as a 'right to be bigots'. Rather, this committee has made—very wisely—no recommendation to change 18C or 18D, and it is to be commended for arriving at that consensus position. I call on the Prime Minister to end this ridiculous debate now and make it clear that it is at an end. There will be no change to section 18C.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—Chief Nationals Whip) (12:52): Regardless of the report before us, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is nothing more than political correctness enshrined in the law limiting freedom of speech. The question for everyone in this parliament, in this institution of democracy, is this: do you support freedom of speech? Do you support the individual's right to say what they think when it causes or incites no physical or reputational harm to another individual? This is one of the bedrocks of democracy. If your answer is yes to that question then you must support the repeal of section 18C or, at least, the removal of the terms 'insult', 'humiliate' and 'offend' from section 18C.
How can those terms—insult, humiliate and offend— even be considered in a legal setting when they are so subjective? How do we judge this? What may offend you might not offend me. It comes back to the key question: do you support the individual's right to say what they think when it causes or incites no physical or reputational harm to another individual? If you do not support that statement, then just be honest and say you do not support freedom of speech, because that is what it comes down to.
We have just heard from the shadow Attorney-General. I will tell him why the process is a problem, because even the process itself limits freedom of speech. It scares people into not speaking out on issues that they otherwise would. Let's just look at what happened to the cartoonist Bill Leak who was hit with an 18C complaint about his, yes, confronting cartoon highlighting a very serious issue of the care of Aboriginal children. Even the fact that it was able to be put up in this kangaroo court process damaged his reputation and cost him money. That alone is enough to stop people from speaking out. In his own submission to the inquiry, Bill Leak shared these concerns. He said:
I think that that hypothetical person working for some magazine that might be online—goodness knows—or whatever but does not have the backing of an organisation like News Corp is going to look at what happened to me and say: 'That bloke really got into a lot of trouble for telling the truth. I better not tell it myself.' If that is not a dampener on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, I do not know what is. To me, I think it is extremely sinister.
This situation is broader than 18C. We have a problem across the nation where antidiscrimination laws in different states and antidiscrimination policies by government departments are silencing people. Look at the situation with Archbishop Julian Porteous in Hobart—he was hit with an antidiscrimination complaint because a marriage booklet was distributed by the Catholic Church outlining Catholic Church policy to the people of a Catholic faith. A Catholic priest or a Catholic bishop should have every right to discuss and explain matters of the Catholic faith to his flock—or to anyone else, for that matter. What is the intention of all this antidiscrimination stuff? Is it to shut up religious leaders?
Another example of an organisation's antidiscrimination policies being used against an employee is that of the Department of Defence against an Army major, Bernard Gaynor, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know Bernie Gaynor. He spoke out about the ADF having a float at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. He believed it was politicising the ADF, because the major focus of the mardi gras now is opposition to government policy on same-sex marriage. Gaynor was charged with offences. He was investigated for breaching Defence policy, and every investigation turned out in his favour. Despite that, his appointment with the ADF was terminated. He fought a court case on that dismissal, and the court found in his favour. In that ruling, Justice Buchanan said:
Freedom of political communication was burdened … [His] conduct involved the expression of political opinion …
As expressed in The Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece in this case, the judge found that being sacked for holding personal political views was too fundamental a right.
That is the point of this whole debate—freedom of political communication and expression is a fundamental right which is enshrined in the Constitution. It is a fundamental right, actually, for all Liberal and National Party members here. It is enshrined in both of our political parties, which make up the coalition government of which we are members. The National Party constitution states that one of the party's objectives is the maintenance of democracy and liberty, and the Liberal Party clearly expresses this belief when it states:
We believe in the most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy—the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.
There is absolutely and simply no way that a government made up of the Liberal and National parties, which uphold those values, can leave this law untouched. Section 18C needs to be repealed. The words 'humiliate', 'offend' and 'insult' need to be removed. We need to strike that blow for freedom of speech and against this nonsensical political correctness machine that is around Australia. Let's start by getting rid of 18C, and let's start working on all these antidiscrimination laws in states and in government departments as well.
Sitting suspended from 12 : 58 to 16 : 00
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:00): I have not experienced racism in this country. That should probably come as no surprise. As a white man in this country, you do not tend to experience racism—probably as a white man anywhere, you do not tend to experience it. But, during the course of the inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights into the legislation that we have that protects people against hate speech, the committee heard from many people who have experienced racism, and what they told us, to a person, as they came before the inquiry, was: 'Don't change the laws of this country to make it easier to say hateful, racist things that hurt people'—a pretty simple message.
The evidence before the inquiry—and it is reflected in the report—was pretty clear. In Australia we enjoy freedom of speech, and there are not that many legitimate arguments—in fact, there are probably no legitimate arguments—that you cannot make in this country. But we have laws that say that, when you are making those arguments—about changing the law or about changing our migration policy—you cannot make those arguments in ways that hurt people and you certainly cannot go out under the banner of free speech and say things that you know are going to have harmful effects on the population.
What we heard during the course of the inquiry—and you will find this in the Greens' dissenting report—is that we are talking about some pretty serious consequences on people from some of the hate speech that members of the Liberal and National parties and others, like Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, want to be able to say. In the words of one professor who gave evidence to the inquiry, this is not just a matter of 'sticks and stones'—that constant, regular experience of negative racialised interaction, whether that be through the media aimed at or speaking about your racial group or immediate interpersonal interactions—but it has huge impacts on health. It is shown to impact on asthma, diabetes and spiritual and mental wellbeing.
We heard that not only from academics with expertise in the area; we heard it from groups representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations who came to the parliament and said: 'We are already doing it pretty tough when it comes to our health. We are already substantially far behind the rest of the population. What we do not need is laws that make it easier to say racist things that are going to impact on our health even more.' That is a very serious request coming from a group of people in this country. But it was not limited to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
We heard from groups representing various religions, across the board, groups representing various cultures and groups representing various nationalities, all saying, to a person, 'If you change the law to make it easier to say racist things, it's not only going to impact on our health and our wellbeing, it's not only going to make us feel that Australia isn't a place where we belong, but in fact if you do it—and especially if you do it now—you are going to give a green light to the kinds of racial attacks and abuse that can often cross the line and can lead people ultimately, sometimes, to breaking point, to as far as they can go.' What they said to us was: 'Not only is it going to harm us, but it will send a very bad signal to the Australian population that it is now okay to be racist'—and that is not the signal that this parliament should be sending to the Australian people. There has never been, in fact, a worse time to send that signal.
We are seeing the rise of right-wing populism. In Senator Pauline Hanson's second maiden speech, when she came back again, she came up to this parliament and said, 'Twenty years ago I said it was Asians who were swamping the country, and now I'm saying it's Muslims.' She does not care which particular group she picks on and vilifies. She does not care what it means for the women, men and children of that particular group living their particular life. For her, any group that she picks on for the purpose of advancing her agenda is fine, and if it means that their lives are ruined as a result she just does not care. To turn around and reward that kind of behaviour and say, 'Actually, now we want to give more licence to people to give more hate speech,' is the wrong thing for this parliament to do.
That is why the Greens issued a dissenting report, and the dissenting report said very clearly and very squarely that we should not change the current provisions of the act. We are disappointed that other members did not join with us in issuing a strong recommendation that the act stay as it is, but that is our view, and it really should be the view of the government as well.
The government have tried to cover all bases with their report, and you can see that they held together, with spit and sticky tape, this ship of all these various people from across the political spectrum in the government, some who would rather be in Pauline Hanson's One Nation party and others who would not. They held it together until this report was issued, and then, as soon as the report was issued, they were off again. Some people were using the report to claim that there need to be changes to 18C, and others on the government side were using it to claim that there should not be any changes.
The Prime Minister now needs to come out and make a very clear statement that in this parliament there will be no changes, no matter what the Trumps in his party like to say, because, until a very clear statement is made that the law will stay as it is, it gives succour to the Trumps in the Liberal-National coalition to continue advancing their agenda. If there is one thing that we have learnt from Brexit and from Trump, it is that when you have extremists who want to stand up and say that all of the problems in this country are caused by one particular religion or one particular racial group, unless you put that issue to bed very firmly early on, they end up running the joint. That is what we found in the UK, and it is what we have found in the US.
So the government have a very clear decision to make at this moment. Are they going to allow this kind of burbling away of subterranean discussion and racism from people who still say the report suggests that we need some changes to the legislation, or are they going to put it to bed once and for all? Are the government going to do what John Howard previously did and say there is no place for the views of One Nation on that side of the political fence, or are they just going to invite them in, embrace them and do preference deals, as we have seen in Western Australia? Disturbingly, that seems to be the way that they are going, and this report is a huge missed opportunity for the government to stand up to the Trumps on their backbench.
The Human Rights Commission itself came along and said: 'Well, look, there might be some sensible changes that could be made to the process. We accept that. If things have happened that mean that the process should change—that the protections still remain but we better enforce those protections through a better process—then let's do it.' That is why the Greens, in our dissenting report, backed in what the Human Rights Commission was saying and said: 'Look, if the Human Rights Commission want to change some of their internal procedures then we support that, because that will give people more confidence in the legislation and it will allow claims to be better processed. But what we are not prepared to do is back in the kinds of changes that the government, in their "every player wins a prize" report, covered in their recommendations, because many of those are actually about getting rid of the protections in this legislation itself.' So we back what the Human Rights Commission has said about tidying up some of its processes but not what is in the report.
In a nutshell, really what this report and the proposed changes to the bill come down to is: at this moment in Australia, are we really prepared to defend multiculturalism? The Greens are. The Greens are prepared to defend multiculturalism, and it is extraordinarily disappointing that the government and the Prime Minister are not prepared to make that same commitment and shout it from the rooftops. Until they do, people are going to rightly ask whether the Prime Minister actually stands for anything or whether he is beholden to the Trumps in his party on every issue, including racism.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:10): Back in 1859 John Stuart Mill wrote in his work On Liberty:
The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press" … No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear. This aspect of the question, besides, has been so often and so triumphantly enforced by preceding writers, that it needs not be specially insisted on in this place … But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
That was back in 1859, and here I am, in 2017, discussing legislation which is a state-imposed restriction on the freedom of speech. The Leader of the Opposition before question time today asked what is it that those who propose there is some problem with 18C want to be able to say in future that they currently cannot say. The Facebook post by a young student from Queensland University of Technology provides an example of what people should be able to say but what 18C is try to prevent them from saying. He simply said:
Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation
For that Facebook post he was dragged through the courts for years and was faced with huge legal expenses. He was subject to ridicule in the media, in the press, simply for making what was nothing other than a statement of fact that he had been kicked out of an unsigned Indigenous computer room and an opinion on public policy—that the Queensland University of Technology was attempting to stop segregation with segregation. I say that is a topic that we should be able to openly debate in this country. Is it correct, in this 21st century, that a publicly funded university can decide who can walk in and out of a computer room depending on their race or the colour of their skin? I think that is a wrong principle.
There maybe some in here there who think the current policy is a good idea, but we have to be able to have the debate; we have to be able to freely debate those ideas as much as some of us might find those ideas offensive to each other—and I find it offensive that we could have in this country a computer room that someone is not allowed into because of their race. Others may find it offensive that I have that opinion, but that is what vigorous debate is all about—it is a contest of ideas to ensure that at the end of the day we get the best decision that we possibly can. That is what the history of Western civilisation has shown.
In discussing 18C and 18D it is very difficult to have a debate with opponents who want no change and who want to protect the legal fraternity who are earning very good money, taking money out of the pockets of students—like at QUT—in the form of legal extortion. Our opponents want to protect those people by saying that anyone who wants to change 18C wants to encourage racism.
I argue the exact opposite. The best way to combat racism in this country is not to sweep it under the carpet with government legislating what you can say. The best way to defeat it is to bring it out in the open and defeat it in the place of public opinion. I put to you the argument that 18C is doing exactly the opposite of what those who want to fight racism think it is doing. Having a section like 18C in legislation that prohibits discussion merely because someone takes an offence is more likely to incite racism and allow it to fester than if we remove that legislation.
This debate shows that some proponents of the current 18C have a very dark view of their fellow Australians. They think there is legislation in place that controls speech and that if this legislation is removed there will be racists running down the street yelling torrents of abuse. I have greater faith in my fellow Australians. I believe we can debate these issues in a sensitive way.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I hear the member over there. I hope he is not laughing at that. I hope he believes that his fellow Australians are better than some of the comments we have heard in this chamber today. I believe my fellow Australians want to tackle and defeat racism in this country, but the best way to do it is to give them free speech.
When we discussed changes to this legislation, I proposed a change to 18D. When we discussed 18C many people said to me, 'But there are provisions in 18D that are there to protect.' Those provisions protect:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest;
This includes clarification that such statements must be made 'reasonably' and 'in good faith'. Yet in the legislation there is no definition of what is 'reasonably' and what is 'in good faith'. These are very vague and subjective terms that turn the onus of proof on the person who has made the statement to prove before the court that what they did was reasonable.
What is the test for reasonable? What is the test for good faith? It simply should be, if it is an artistic work—as in the Bill Leak case—exempt from the act. The defence for Bill Leak's cartoon simply should be it is a bloody cartoon, therefore an artistic work and so exempt from the act. There should not be a requirement for the cartoonist to prove in court that what he has done is reasonable and in good faith.
We still need restrictions on freedom of speech but those restrictions should be limited to incitement of actual or threatened physical violence. Where they cross over into the threshold of what we saw in that Queensland university case we, clearly, have a problem with legislation in this country.
I hope that those on the other side, when they argue this backwards and forwards across the chamber, who wish to see changes to 18C and 18D do so with good hearts, do so wanting to eradicate racism from our nation. On this side, our belief is that the best way to eradicate it is to bring those people out into the open. Do not let it fester underground. Let's defeat them with open debate and free speech rather than with government sanctioned restrictions on freedom of speech.
With that, I thank the House and I hope that those who contribute to this debate will respect that there is goodwill on both sides of this parliament.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (16:20): I would like to pick up where the honourable member for Hughes left off on a number of fronts.
Firstly, in relation to some technical aspects of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the honourable member pondered the complexity of the fact that terms such as 'reasonably likely' were as yet undefined in the act. Perhaps I can put the honourable member's concern to some rest, because the term 'reasonably likely' is a term—
Mr Craig Kelly: It was 'reasonable'!
Mr HAMMOND: Well, 'reasonable' is a term that has long existed in relation to a statutory interpretation as to a common sense and objective approach to properly reflect community standards.
We can take a lot of issue with some of the conclusions reached in the recent report from the very hardworking Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, but one does not doubt for one minute that they certainly put every ounce of diligence into producing the report in a relatively expeditious manner. What is very clear from that report is that the consensus of views is not that the courts are getting it wrong in relation to a reasonable person test, or even to a good faith test. There is no dispute within this report that hundreds of years of judicial interpretation of statute as to a reasonable person test and a test as to what constitutes in good faith requires any drastic revision.
What is really at the nub of how perplexing the opposition is to what is currently contained within 18C and 18D are the examples that those on the conservative side like to trot out as to how the current provisions are just so egregious. We constantly fall back to the QUT case and to the Bill Leak case. Let's unpack that. I think that once we actually unpack that in a sensible and objective manner we might find that the substance of those provisions are working precisely as they were intended, and that is to ensure that there is a standard level of decency upon which we can treat our fellow man with dignity and respect.
What happened in the QUT case? My friend, the member for Hughes, gave examples of some of the evidence tendered in the court case that was heard before the Federal Court and on which its determination was made. Guess what? They won. The result in the court was that they did not breach the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act. So what we really have here—and this is where the rubber hits the road—is a complaint about process, because the complaint here is that the students were treated unfairly as a result of the procedure. And guess what this report does?
Mr Craig Kelly: It enforces the—
Mr HAMMOND: Guess what the balance of members on your side actually arrived at? A conclusion that picked up the recommendations of the discrimination commissioner to say that the process and procedure can be improved. They went to great lengths—I see that the honourable member for Moore is here, and I am sure he will know as well as anyone—to set out in 22 recommendations how this process can be improved. So what we see here are suggestions, backed in by the commission, about how the procedure can be improved. At no stage is there a suggestion here, amongst those procedural recommendations, that the provision of the act is not doing what is intended.
Let us move on to the other one that constantly gets a run as to why the rights of citizens in this country are so offended by the construction of sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act: the famous Bill Leak cartoon. Let us unpack that a little further as well. Guess what. That case did not get up either. Are you seeing a pattern here, Madam Deputy Speaker? The two most egregious examples of offence that the conservatives like to roll out time and time again were both found not to offend the relevant provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act.
That then leads us to ask a further question, and that is: what is really behind what is going on here? I suspect what we see is mischief at a couple of levels. Time and time again, we see members on the other side, with furious frustration, vent about how the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act are too tightly wound to allow people just to speak their minds. It gets back to that phrase that can never be forgotten. It was uttered by, unbelievably, our current Attorney-General, who, quite frankly, should know a lot better than to express such a view:
People do have a right to be bigots, you know.
What I cannot work out about that approach is how it possibly does anything to complement or to back in what we like to think is an Australian way of treating our fellow community members. It reveals such a flawed analysis of what a common level of decency actually entails, that, if those on the far right and those who defend the right of someone to be a bigot had their way, we would lose that precious safety net that we have, that is working perfectly well and that we have proudly backed in for at least the last 20 years.
I cannot help but think that this approach, this analysis, by those on the other side is so fundamentally flawed it comes to this. According to my notes of what the member for Hughes said when he was postulating his own way for how this could be fixed, he said that the act should be amended in order to curtail any offences under the Racial Discrimination Act for any 'uttered incidents that might relate to physical violence'. That is what he said, and I made a very careful note of that, because it just underpins how badly they do not get it. They just do not get it.
An honourable member: It is about language.
Mr HAMMOND: Not only is it about language but it is about not having any real clue, any real sense of empathy, as to what it is actually like to walk on the other side of the street. And I will not stand here and pontificate or pretend to know what it is like.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr HAMMOND: I delight in the laughter on the other side, because it just underpins how little you get it—how little you can even possibly claim to understand what life must be like to be treated, from the word go, as if you do not really match up or measure up to someone else in the community. We judge ourselves by the way in which we treat the most vulnerable members of our community, and if you have your way—which is not the way of this committee, because it did not go down this road, to its credit—you will release the chance of any real prospect of ensuring that we treat our most vulnerable members of the community with any sense of decency. The problem with the conservative far right is that every word that comes out of their mouths just confirms to me that they do not get what it is like to protect the most vulnerable members of their community, and I am seeing no sign of that improving.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:30): There has been much debate regarding the Racial Discrimination Act in Australia, particularly section 18C, and we have all become increasingly familiar with 18C, which creates an offence of saying anything which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.
The commitment to repeal 18C was taken by Tony Abbott to the 2013 election, and for good reason: it is fundamental to a free and functioning democracy that we protect the rights of individuals to free expression of genuinely held belief. In the interim there have been some very high-profile cases that have generated a groundswell of support to repeal at least part of 18C, perhaps by removing the words 'offend' and 'insult' from the section rather than completely repealing it. The course of action that has been proposed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is a possible option for reform of the act. It is a disappointment that they could not have been more deliberate in their recommendations in this area. However, to cut off the short history of the joint committee's report, it is worth noting that, when the newly elected Abbott government moved to deliver on its commitment to abolish 18C, a large antireform group coalesced, and it became increasingly obvious that there was no chance of passing the required legislation through the Senate. As such, Prime Minister Abbott determined that, with so much of the government's reform agenda being held up by an intransigent Senate, the government's efforts were better spent elsewhere, and the proposal was dropped.
We as a society have implemented laws to protect our freedoms and our way of life, and in Australia the law is one of the tools available to combat racial vilification. That is why the Racial Discrimination Act exists. Freedom of speech, however, is a fundamental right in our democratic society, and we are blessed to live in a country where we have basic freedoms. As with all these things, it is a matter of balance. If we have no law, we surrender our freedom. If we have laws that restrict too much and impinge on our ability to move and to speak on the issues that truly concern us, that too impinges on our freedom.
Some have called for the total abandonment of 18C and consider that other protections that sit within our law structures, such as those against libellous and defamatory statements, are sufficient, and a powerful case can be made for that. However, given the events surrounding the last attempt to abandon 18C, it is highly likely that another attempt would meet the same fate. In that case, serious consideration needs to be given to whether, in Australia, the giving of offence or insulting an individual should be subject to legal sanction. It is indeed a very low bar and a totally subjective judgement, and in my opinion laws that depend on subjective judgement should be avoided wherever possible.
It is a section of the legislation which silenced Andrew Bolt in 2011, stemming from the comments he made in a newspaper column that were deemed to have contravened section 18C. It is also these words which led to the outrageous attack on four Queensland university students in connection with the now infamous Indigenous-only computing room on campus, urged on by our Human Rights Commission, who seem to have lost the most important filter of all, common sense. Individuals were supported in laying charges against other individuals that common sense should have told them should never have been laid. Common sense would have precluded such support, but it seems that the Human Rights Commission was in their opinion motivated by law. If that is the case, it is surely time to reconsider the laws that generated that behaviour.
Let us consider the premise of offence and how broadly we construe the notion of offence. The frighteningly low harm threshold, through the use of the words 'offend' and 'insult' is problematic. Freedom of speech means people sometimes will be offended. What may not offend 99.9 per cent of the population may well offend just one person. This definition makes the statement of offending perhaps just one person an offence—in fact, people can choose to be offended. It is clearly preposterous and it should be rectified. This would not sanction speech that vilifies or insights racial hatred.
It is possible that section 18C was an appropriate piece of legislation for its time. However, it is the nature of our legal system that decisions are made on the basis of precedence. There are many areas of law where this results in incrementalism, or a reinterpretation of the original intent of the law. If this continues to occur then it becomes highly likely that the original laws will need to be amended to allow for this reinterpretation. This is what needs to be done in the case of section 18C. A law that once seemed to rest easily in Australia is now doing harm to interracial relationships by destroying social harmony and cohesion and increasing hostility and resentment towards ethic and racial minorities.
We may disagree with views that contradict our own, but it is surely a better mechanism for harmony to throw open discussion and encourage ideas rather than prohibit them. In fact, none other than the champion of the left-wing press, David Marr, said as much six years ago in The Sydney Morning Herald: 'In a free society, giving offence is necessary.' Australia is a robust society—certainly in the political field it is extremely robust—and it is an underlying strength of our democracy that we must be prepared to fight for. Political correctness is not only strangling the Australian vernacular, it is limiting the manner in which we can discuss the important issues of our time. Unbelievably, we have surrendered the right to call a spade a spade. Who would ever have believed that of Australia? Minorities find themselves, under section 18C, in a unique position as the wielders of an unfair weapon available only to them. How is it that a middle-aged white male in Australia would almost certainly not find 18C a protection for abuse or victimisation?
Bess Price, that remarkable young Indigenous Northern Territorian said:
If a non-Aboriginal attempts to address any of these issues—
she is referring to domestic violence in Indigenous communities—
and an Aboriginal person is offended by this they can simply call ‘racist’ and the debate is shut down.
The risk 18C imposes on public debate is compounded by requiring that the commentary is only reasonably likely to 'offend' or 'insult'. Freedom of speech is crucial to the quest for truth and honesty. Society will more effectively ascertain accurate facts and valuable opinions in an atmosphere of free and uninhibited discussion and criticism of a debate. Simon Breheny from the Institute of Public Affairs recently revealed that there are 18 complaints currently under consideration by the Australian Human Rights Commission and that over the last six years there have been 838 complaints lodged under 18C. Section 18C has restricted freedom of speech in our democracy without people even knowing it.
What compounds the issue is that section 18C has done nothing to eliminate racial discrimination but has had a truly detrimental impact on freedom of speech. If not for the high-profile case of Andrew Bolt and the Queensland University of Technology case public awareness of the implications of section 18C would be largely unknown. However, we should not make the mistake of believing that it only has an effect in those high-profile cases. It is seriously limiting the extent of discourse and honesty on a daily basis. If the Australian Human Rights Commission takes a selective rather than a rational position on cases and in their interpretation of cases brought before them, an ideological position stands to incur more harm than good for racial relations. 'Offend' and 'insult' are too open to interpretation. These words are subjective and rely on the emotions and the responses of the recipient. Australian law should not be based on subjectivity. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has survived for more than 20 years without being challenged in the High Court of Australia, and the time has come to review and adapt the act. In Salman Rushdie's words:
Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other's positions. (But they don't shoot.)
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:40): It seems to me that the occasion of us even having this debate demonstrates the clear necessity for the Racial Discrimination Act and for the continuation of sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. It seems to me that some members opposite have confused the notion of argument with the notion of racial abuse. No-one believes the Racial Discrimination Act is going to stop democracy. The Racial Discrimination Act is not going to stop us having a robust argument about policy. The Racial Discrimination Act does not stop me disagreeing vehemently with those opposite. It does not stop me using colourful language in the corridors. It does not stop me engaging in the battle of the minds. What it does is it stops me using racist terms while I am doing so. God forbid I be stopped from having the freedom to abuse somebody for where they were born or who their parents are!
The Racial Discrimination Act in this country serves a really important purpose. We are having this debate because the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights had an inquiry into freedom of speech. The 'freedom boys' from the opposite benches have simply watched far too much American television. They want to wrap this argument in some kind of misplaced jingoism, harking for an Australia of some time that never existed. Freedom boys, it never existed. You could go back to the fifties, if you like. Racism was alive and well, as was sexism. I was born in a family that claim to be Roman Catholic of Irish heritage. In the fifties my family were discriminated against. This act protects people from that. This act makes us better people. This act has built a better country.
This act and section 18C, put in by Paul Keating, mean that, as a teacher in a school, I can say to children, 'We should confront racism wherever we find it, because it is enshrined in our laws that we do.' I can point to a piece of legislation, when I am working with two children who may have clashed and may have been at risk of breaching this act, and I can say, 'This is against the law.' I know not everybody here has dealt with adolescents for the same length of time as I have, but let me tell you: when two boys or two girls have been going at it in the yard and you bring them in and sit them down to try to undo the animosity between these two people, who may have stepped into areas that breach this law, the power of putting this document in front of those young people is extraordinary.
Conversely, the power of the senator in the other place saying, 'People have a right to be a bigot,' gave licence to people in classrooms, in playgrounds and in workplaces across this nation to cross a line that we as a country decided we did not want people to cross. That is what this debate is about. This debate is about winding things back. I ask the same question that all of my colleagues have asked: what is it that people want to say that this act stops them from saying? What is it? Put the words on the table. What words do you think you want to use in this robust democracy of ours? Why do we want to go to personal insult to debate the big ideas? Why do we need to?
The committee that ran this inquiry, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, heard from some really important people who had some really important things to say. Mr Iain Anderson, a deputy secretary in the Attorney-General's Department, Senator George Brandis's own department, said in his evidence to the committee:
We do have very clear jurisprudence on what they mean taken together as a package—
that is, 18C and 18D.
What we need here is an education process. We could start in parliament; we could start with the lawmakers of this country who continue to discuss 18C separately from 18D, who continue to take this debate down a road it does not need to go. One has to ask: what are the motivations for that? What could possibly be motivating lawmakers, legislators, in this country to actively misrepresent this piece of legislation—a piece of legislation that I am incredibly proud our country has enshrined. These are really important matters.
I want to go to something that was written not too long ago, because there are people in this House and the other place who want continually to revisit this question around the Racial Discrimination Act. It has been going on for some time. There was a poll taken that found 49 per cent of people support a Trump style ban on Muslim immigration. You may remember it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The interesting thing about the poll was that only 24 per cent of young people felt that way. I believe this variation can be put down to young people growing up in multicultural classrooms. Their experience of Australia means that there is less fear. They have generally been exposed to an Australia where the discourse is more embracing of multiculturalism; where they have been asked to accept their friends, play sport with them and sit beside them; where they have had teachers of different races and ethnicities. Changing 18C would send a clear message to those young people that their teachers, communities and families were wrong. It would tell them that bigotry is okay. Anyone younger than 22 years of age has lived in an Australia where section 18C has facilitated the development of a diverse and vibrant nation. This section was put in with the specific objective of assisting us to create the multicultural, harmonious communities that we all want to live in.
This brings us back to the question of motive. My favourite line from the Leader of the Opposition is: 'We don't tolerate multiculturalism in this country; we embrace it.' It is such a powerful line, such a powerful thought. It makes you think about our communities, the way we work together, the way we are building them. I stand here as someone who spent many, many years in classrooms helping to create a harmonious multicultural community. I stand here as someone who taught children to challenge racism, to challenge sexism; who taught children that they should stand up and speak out. I know what the world will look like if this debate continues. I know that around the country those people who have smaller voices will be silenced if this debate continues. I know that they will think twice about standing up for their rights. I know that because, although privileged in my upbringing and privileged in being here as a member of parliament, I am still a woman and I have lived in a sexist world. I have had to challenge sexism in the workplace. I have had to challenge sexism in my classroom.
Privilege rarely recognises itself, and I challenge this parliament—those people who want to continue to have this debate—to look deeply inside themselves and ask themselves: am I privileged? I say to them: start to recognise the privilege that is in this place and what it means. Think about the people outside this place who have not had the same privilege. Think about those young children in classrooms. Think about teachers working hard with those young people. Think about families. Think about those people for whom this act and sections 18C and 18D were shaped to support, were shaped to embolden, were shaped to protect. We all, in this place, love the country that we serve. Let's not disagree on how that country should be.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:50): At the outset, I would like to say that this is an issue where fair minds will differ. This is an issue that reasonable people will have different views on. I am a proud member of the Liberal National Party and a proud member of my local community on the Sunshine Coast. Like the people of Fisher and in many other parts of Australia, I believe in free speech and, as such, I welcome this report for the opportunity it provides to address this issue—hopefully, once and for all.
On the substance of the report's recommendations, for the most part I agree with them. On the whole, the report's recommendations represent rational and much-needed reforms, particularly to the complaints process. On the central issue of this report, we have heard a lot of claims from members opposite today. Contrary to almost every Labor speech we have heard today, this report does not say that no case has been made for change to section 18C itself. It does not recommend that the status quo is acceptable, and nor does it recommend that we do not act. The report demonstrates that opinion among the committee members was divided on the best way forward. The question remains to be decided in this House and in the parliament, and I hope to have the opportunity to speak on legislation for a review of section 18C soon.
This debate is about one of the most fundamental principles that underlie our parliamentary democracy, but it is also about people—ordinary Australians in all of our electorates. In our privileged situation in this place, protected by the conventions that support the vigour of our debates, we must always remember what our constituents are telling us. They do not enjoy the privileged protections that we do when sitting in this place. They face more than the howls and jeers of members opposite when they have something to say. I know that there are many people in my electorate of Fisher who feel like they cannot speak their minds. In our pubs and clubs, our RSLs, our cafes and even in people's homes, my constituents have told me that they do not feel able to express their opinions freely. Many have expressed their concerns to me. Others have written to me; letters and emails on section 18C come into my office in a wave of frustration and concern. On how many other issues can we say that our constituents always know exactly the act and the specific provision that we are talking about here? This is not a fringe issue for the people of Fisher. This law goes to the heart of what I consider to be a 'Canberra bubble' culture and a left-wing elite that seems to refuse to listen to ordinary Australians or take what they care about seriously.
These people in my electorate are not extremists. They do not want to hurt anyone, they have no intention of humiliating their fellow Australians and they do not mean to insult or offend them. We hear a lot from members opposite in this debate about protecting Australians who are not part of the privileged elite. Well, the people who come to me to tell me that they feel oppressed by this law come from every background and every walk of life. Many of them are older Australians, many live in regional areas and many are doing it tough. This law does nothing to protect them.
Around the country, and particularly in Queensland, we know that some of our people are feeling disenfranchised. Some of them are turning to so-called 'outside' groups who seem to be able to say what they feel prevented from saying themselves.
We are now reaping what we have sown in Australia. With the activist stance taken by some in the Human Rights Commission, by some members opposite and by overzealous campaigners in recent years, we are facing a fracturing in our society that comes from the left-wing elite enforcement of an extremist ideology. If you have a different view to me—I am not reflecting that on you, Madam Deputy Speaker!—a view that does not accord with the Green-Labor metropolitan so-called consensus, then you can expect to be howled down and condemned as a racist. You can expect to be the subject of ridicule, abuse and even threats of violence. This is not to mention the inordinate cost of mounting a legal defence.
Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act as it stands has not caused this attitude: I accept that, but it enables it. For a great many Australians it represents the legal force of a culture that is alien and hostile to their values. Australians expect, deserve and demand the freedom to express their opinions. People in my electorate believe that they cannot do so with this law in its current form. Their belief is entirely, in my view, understandable.
The highest-profile cases under section 18C represent only the most visible part of a growing tide of complaints. A recent right-to-information request made by the Institute of Public Affairs in 2016 showed that over the previous six years 832 separate complaints had been made under section 18C. Four hundred and forty had come in the previous financial year. It is a nonsense to suggest that there has been a dramatic explosion in the amount of criminal hate speech happening in Australia in those recent years. What has changed is the attitude of the people who are making and assessing these complaints. This tide needs to be turned. This law needs to be changed. Personally, I would favour the repeal of section 18C in its entirety.
However, I understand and respect the fact that there is a diversity of views in our own community. I know that we need to strike a balance that appreciates the strength of feeling on both sides of this debate and that upholds both the right of free speech and the necessity of protecting all Australians from genuine harm. In finding this compromise we should return to the first principles of the law. In any free country it must be clear and unambiguous; that is, we must know what is lawful and what is not. The liberties and livelihoods of our citizens cannot be at the mercy of subjective or debatable prohibitions. It cannot be the case that an individual's retrospective or personal feelings are the test by which a person is condemned. This, more than any other, is the principle that is undermined by section 18C as it currently stands, and this is the flaw that we must repair.
We should amend section 18C to remove the words, 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate'. These tests are fundamentally subjective. The suggestion to replace these words with 'harass' has some merit, particularly if it is expressly defined in the act. Amended in this way, the legislation would continue to provide protections for all Australians from the real harm that can come from speech. All Australians would enjoy protection from those who would seek to incite violence, from those who would harass and from those who would intimidate on the basis of ethnic origin. But under this amended legislation, all Australians would also be protected from being harassed, intimidated and prosecuted at the whim of another on the basis of their opinions.
We would have made it clear that this country upholds freedom of speech and that our people need never be afraid to raise an issue or to express a view. We would have sent an unambiguous signal to our constituents that we want to hear their voices and that we will listen to them speak.
The American abolitionist and civil rights campaigner Frederick Douglass said in 1860 that to suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of those who hear as well as the speaker. As Douglass knew, our political process can only succeed and deliver the best outcomes for all Australians of every race and ethnicity when we can express our views and contribute to the discussion.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (17:00): I rise in this place today to state unreservedly that I do not now nor will I in the future support the watering down of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Building respectful and vibrant communities that quest strong economies will not happen in an environment that enables racially fuelled hate speech.
Surely, in 2017, we as the human race are advanced enough to have direct and plain-speaking robust debate that does not need to resort to hate speech to make a point. However, history has shown that racism will regularly raise its ugly head, especially whenever there is a marginalised or oppressed minority. Even people who would otherwise lead decent lives can suddenly be caught up in racist hysteria, saying and doing atrocious things. At the same time, those in society who do not support racism can be silenced by the noise of racism, resulting in horror visited on peace, tolerance and security.
There are many recent examples, such as America in the fifties during the civil rights movement, and Germany in the thirties, where racism became official ideology and law. Wherever and whenever racism thrives, skin colour or religion are used to determine how people will be treated and, in some cases, even whether they will live or die.
Australians do not need to look too far afield to find racism. Sadly, there is ample evidence in our own backyard. The Australian Constitution still discriminates against Indigenous Australians. In 1967 our nation's birth certificate was amended to allow Indigenous Australians to be treated equally under Commonwealth laws but, even then, 10 per cent of Australians voted against this inclusion. The White Australia policy was not completely dismantled until 1973. The drafters of our Constitution and designers of the White Australia policy reflected the racist ideology of their times.
Laws help set up the standard of acceptable community behaviour. Once our Constitution was amended, once the White Australia policy was dismantled, Australians on the whole respected that Indigenous Australians would be treated equally and that immigrants from non-European countries would be welcomed and accepted. This powerful message has helped make Australia the most successful multicultural nation in the world. Labor members do not consider that any case has been successfully made to alter part 2 of the Racial Discrimination Act.
My electorate of Herbert has a very high Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander population as well as being a refugee resettlement city. My community, like other diverse communities, has work to do to strengthen its approach to valuing diversity and difference. Palm Island is in the Herbert electorate and is one of the largest discrete Aboriginal communities in Australia. I take my role as the member for Herbert very seriously in this place and I understand that there are many diverse backgrounds and cultural differences in my electorate.
Professor Gracelyn Smallwood, Bindal elder and longstanding local Aboriginal activist, has said, 'If we had a treaty and Bill of Rights there would be a balance. There is no balance or common sense by removing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.' The arrogance of conservative people wanting to abolish this section for freedom of speech is so racist and very uneducated. They have not even made the true colonial history of this country mandatory in schools—let alone speak of multiculturalism, which is already in Australia.
Do they want to go back in time where Italians, Aborigines and LGBTIQ people were regularly referred to in nothing short of demeaning terms? Stop wasting taxpayers' resources and put energy into unemployment, drug, alcohol and gambling addictions, family violence, abuse, homelessness, deaths and poverty. The world is watching us.
Associate Professor Clare Andersen represents the national Indigenous Education Consultative Bodies network. In relation to the harm that could be caused to Indigenous children by watering down 18C, she said:
Closing the Gap focuses on education outcomes and health outcomes. If kids are not happy, then they will not do well at school. We already have that going on. If you are not well educated, your health is generally poorer. Those two things are tied up together. If we water it down, it will only make things worse—it will not make things better.
I have also spoken to the Mayor of Palm Island, Councillor Alf Lacey, about what changes to the Racial Discrimination Act would mean for the Palm Island community, and he said:
People need to think about the impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Racism comes in many forms and should never be acceptable. We need to ensure that we are not creating environments where racism is acceptable.
The people on Palm Island need jobs, economic sustainability; health care programs that make a difference to the lives of the residents and opportunities for our children to access a TAFE or University education.
The Bwgcolman people of Palm Island deserve more than a Prime Minister who launched an inquiry to investigate whether it would be agreeable to remove sections of the Racial Discrimination Act to allow people to make a racist remarks. Legislating to enable racist comments in 2017 is outrageous. Some people were surprised by the fact that the Prime Minister launched this inquiry into section 18C, but I was not surprised at all. One only has to look at the history of this government—they have a great track record in picking on and attacking this nation's most vulnerable and marginalised citizens. The Turnbull government is cutting $48 million from Townsville schools and millions of dollars from the Townsville Health and Hospital Service, and the Turnbull government has overseen the Centrelink robo-debt debacle, where the government would rather chase and harass a grandmother for a few thousand dollars that she does not owe than chase big corporations for billions of dollars in avoided taxes. Added to this list is their latest diabolical support for cuts to penalty rates, where workers who give up time with their families on a Sunday to earn enough money to survive are being severely punished. In fact, they will have to work longer hours to earn the same pay packet. It was no surprise to me that this government would want to try to water down 18C in the Racial Discrimination Act to further disadvantage our first nation people and other marginalised citizens. I bet the Prime Minister's right arm is sore from the extreme right wing in his party constantly twisting it.
Diversity Council Australia gave evidence to the committee in Darwin. They represent 400 members, including all major Australian banks and many of the international global banks, major retail groups and many government departments. Their members' employees comprise about 10 per cent of the Australian labour market. Their evidence considered the economic cost of racism to their member organisations, and the chief executive officer, Ms Lisa Annese, said in her evidence to the committee:
… when we create inclusive workplaces, so when workplaces tap into and value the differences between people—and that could be differences based on race and culture but also other areas of diversity such as disability, LGBTI identity, Indigenous identity or gender … individuals feel more engaged in their workplace. They are more likely to be productive, and they are more likely to be present. There is less absenteeism. And then, if you follow the money on that one, it leads to greater profitability and productivity.
A plethora of evidence given to the committee asserted that any change to the wording of sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act will definitely cause uncertainty and would be likely to create even more litigation and confusion. The committee has heard witness after witness from communities spanning the length and breadth of Australia telling of the harm that racism causes to individuals who are targeted in their communities. Equal Opportunity Tasmania referred in their submission to a 2013 survey of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds conducted by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, and said this about the results:
Importantly, those surveyed exhibited poorer mental health and higher levels of psychological stress compared with those who had not experienced racism; and the levels of distress increased for those who had repeatedly been subjected to racist behaviour … levels of psychological distress were associated with the volume of racist experiences and not necessarily the type … experiences of everyday racism may be just as harmful to mental health as other more severe episodes.
Labor fought to protect 18C in 2014 when the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, tried to destroy it and we will fight to protect it again. Freedom of speech and freedom from hate speech are balanced in sections 18C and 18D, which have worked well for decades. Why is it that this government wants to change them now. I want to know what people like George Christensen and Senator Malcolm Roberts want to say that they cannot say right now.
The report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has made no recommendation to change section 18C of the act, and the Prime Minister should not look to proceed to any changes of law and should try to make this country a place where racism is not acceptable. As a nation, we should be proud to share this land with the oldest living culture and we should show respect for our first nation people and not enable a racist inquiry. Our nation should value the contribution of the many refugees and migrants who have made significant contributions to our community—for example, Associate Professor Munjed Al Muderis, orthopaedic surgeon and clinical lecturer at the Macquarie University and the Australian School of Advanced Medicine, a refugee from Iraq. (Time expired)
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (17:10): My home state of South Australia and my residents in Boothby face a range of pressing challenges. We have the most unreliable and most expensive electricity in the nation, one of the highest unemployment rates and the highest cost of doing business. We also have historic levels of state government debt. These issues go to the core of what we believe as the Liberal Party and as a government—the importance of keeping the power on, balancing budgets, letting business get on with employing people, providing health care and education and being able to afford to do so, and protecting the most vulnerable in our society. These are some of the obvious roles and responsibilities of our party and our government. Our party also has a great responsibility when it comes to the issue facing us today—that of the fight for freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental tenet of our core Australian values and beliefs. Overwhelmingly we are a tolerant, respectful and polite society. But we exist at a time when the culture of victimhood and taking offence has overrun common sense and people resolving their issues by themselves without the need for government interference. In a very real sense, I feel that we are witnessing a weakening of our social fabric. Wrongs or perceived wrongs are no longer remedied by talking it out or seeking support and assistance from your neighbours or your friends or your colleagues or your boss or your community but by lodging a complaint with a government agency or the courts. Far too often we are turning to government to fix all of our woes, and far too often government is responding with legislation and agencies, and in this case human rights commissioners who are so far removed from the reality of Australian life and society that their decisions are too often ridiculous or of very serious concern. We are no longer self-sufficient and we no longer harness the power of our communities to help us solve problems when they arise. I think this leads to some terrible social outcomes.
I do not believe there is anyone who can honestly say that the QUT case has resulted in good outcomes for any of the parties involved. When you get a body like the Human Rights Commission involved in a case like this, problems become amplified and lead to a breakdown of social and human relationships. Lives have been ruined. The evidence presented by Mr Alexander Wood to the committee is quite heartbreaking. What this student went through at the hands of an agency of the state is utterly and absolutely inexcusable. For a two-sentence Facebook post, Mr Wood's life was turned upside down for several years, and even though he was exonerated he was left with a $41,000 legal bill, and his legal team were left out of pocket.
Mr Wood's compelling evidence to the committee, on pages 77 and 78 of the report, is a must-read, and I encourage everybody in this place to do so. That the process occurred as it did—that students in addition to Mr Wood had years of their life and their reputations destroyed, that they faced significant financial penalties of between $5,000 and potentially $250,000, and, as it turned out for Mr Wood, a $40,000 legal bill—is an outrage. Leaving aside the appalling processes that Mr Wood and his fellow students were subjected to, there is a broader point here, to my mind.
If there is a section of society we expect to exercise their freedom of speech and to push its boundaries the most, it is our students. A society that silences its students is a society in a very dangerous place. For centuries students have been at the centre of new ideas, thoughts, student protests and even revolution, although I would refer any students contemplating revolution to the 19th century Russian Narodniks for a warning about the prospects of revolutionary success—or lack thereof.
A society that seeks to silence its cartoonists, I believe, is also in a very dangerous place. In my experience, our cartoonists are often also our artists and teachers. They are our thinkers and our philosophers. My year 9 high school art teacher was the late Michael Atchison OAM, who taught me the importance of the classics, art history and theory and the art of letter writing. He made us draw our art exams from still-life compositions in the appropriate gradients of lead pencil, and in his spare time he drew The Advertiser's editorial cartoon most days, in addition to his Word for Word cartoon, which explained the origin of a different word every day. He was, I think it is fair to say, deliberately provocative and one of the most inspiring teachers I had.
The magnificent Bill Leak is another stellar example of the cartoonist as a provocative thinker and artist. We are blessed to have a national cartoonist who pushes the boundaries and challenges us to reflect on society, on politics and on policy decisions. His work is informed by his brilliance as a portraitist, and he deserves national treasure status for having made a contribution in the press, to the Archibald Prize and to our National Portrait Gallery, which holds his portraits of Gavin Campbell, Sir Donald Bradman, Richard Woolcott and—one of my personal favourites—another national treasure, Robert Hughes, titled Nothing If Not Critical—which seems to be the problem of those opposite as well. In fact, Mr Leak's portraits of former Labor leaders Bob Hawke and Bill Hayden hang on the walls of this place, and I hope those opposite realise that. Perhaps they do not.
When we disrupt our cartoonists with threats of censorship or with court cases threatening censorship and possible financial ruin, their creative processes and confidence are disrupted too. Just look at what several cartoonists said to the committee, including Mr Leak. The committee report says:
2.32 Mr Bill Leak, an editorial cartoonist at The Australian newspaper who was subject to an 18C complaint, shared his concerns about the impact of his case on other cartoonists:
I think that that hypothetical person working for some magazine that might be online—goodness knows—or whatever but does not have the backing of an organisation like News Corp is going to look at what happened to me and say: 'That bloke really got into a lot of trouble for telling the truth. I better not tell it myself.' If that is not a dampener on freedom of expression and freedom of speech, I do not know what is. To me, I think it is extremely sinister.
2.33 Mr Paul Zanetti, also a cartoonist subject to an 18C complaint, shared this concern:
I am more exposed than Bill because I am an independent syndicator. It is a concern because it is designed to stifle freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of expression. It is a form of thought police, where if you dare to step outside certain boundaries we have this law where anybody is entitled to come after you and drag you in front of a government institution. It could send you broke. You could lose your house—the ramifications of the rest of it where you are held personally liable. There is no protection for anybody who wants to exercise real freedom of speech or expression.
When we silence those who tell uncomfortable truths or provoke us to reflect on ourselves and our actions, we are poorer as a society. We know from bitter past experience what happens to nations that silence their artists and critics: soon they silence large parts of their society too.
There is another sector of our society that we need to protect as well to enable them to continue to provoke debate, and that is our columnists. A society that seeks to silence its columnists and commentators is also in a very dangerous place. I worked as a columnist before entering this place. I worried about defamation. I worried about ending up in a section 18C style dispute or an Andrew Bolt like court case and, as such, determined not to write about certain topics, because they were just too dangerous. This is a common fear, as the committee heard:
A number of submitters, particularly journalists and lawyers employed to represent them, argued that section 18C had a 'chilling effect' in relation to freedom of speech.26 For example, Dr Augusto Zimmerman identified that, as an academic, he has come across people 'who are intimidated and afraid of expressing their opinions', and further:
… even on radio interviews that I have given I have asked the person conducting the interview if he feels comfortable to say certain things. People are getting really worried these days about making comments.
I have not yet had time to fully consider the recommendations of the committee's report and what our best course of action to fix this terrible problem is—this terrible problem that sees some 71 people currently subject to other section 18C claims and goodness knows how many before them who have settled claims and at what financial and personal cost to the alleged offenders. What I do know is that the freedom we take for granted must be protected. Where laws constrain our freedom of speech they must be fixed. We should aim to restore the role of community and civil society in addressing the problems of racism. We must take power back from the bureaucrats and encourage our citizens to assume responsibility for their actions and reactions.
As Sir Robert Menzies said, 'We are the custodians of great freedoms, whether they be in enterprise or speech. We are charged with protecting the freedom to do our best and to make that best better; a freedom that goes deep into the very dignity of man.'
We must protect freedom of speech.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Before I call the next speaker I would just like to gently remind all members present in the chamber that the heart of this particular debate is about the importance of respect. As such, I would remind members in the chamber that members who are speaking are entitled to be heard with respect.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (17:21): I would like to start by commending the committee for limiting its recommendations to procedural matters and for not recommending any implicit changes to 18C and 18D. In particular, I commend the recommendation by the committee to support, strengthen and develop education programs to address racism in Australian society and to address the scope of the meaning of the Racial Discrimination Act, which was recommendation 1 of the report.
I also commend the second recommendation, that recognises the profound impacts of serious forms of racism, something which those on the other side seem to think are invisible, and calls for leaders and politicians—leaders and politicians!—to exercise their freedom of speech to identify and condemn racially hateful and discriminatory speech where it occurs in public. Again, that is something that is missed by those on the other side.
I take that responsibility very seriously, and I issue a challenge for those on the other side to also take it seriously, because apart from a very few shining examples on the backbench, the leadership of this government has remained silent, and that silence is dangerous. It is dangerous because it gives a tacit nod to racism. It gives a tacit nod to the experiences of hundreds of thousands of Australians in their electorates who every day come face to face with the scourge of racism in this country. It gives a tacit nod to people who misguidedly believe that their skin colour makes them superior. Or, in the words of the member for Moore yesterday, more 'mainstream' than somebody with my skin colour, for example.
And I must take the member for Moore to task for his assertion yesterday that mainstream Australians are affected by reverse racism on two points. First of all, that racism is racism is racism. 'Reverse' racism is often used to differentiate racism that is directed towards a dominant group in a society. But whether the offence comes from a radical Islamic preacher sprouting his hatred at people of other races or from a mediocre, has-been cartoonist who thinks it is amusing to express his agreement with ISIS—and I must note that Ms Flint did not mention him in her diatribe in defence of cartoonists—18C is there to protect everyone and 18D is there to protect free speech.
Secondly, when it comes to Australia, the 'mainstream' that the member for Moore alluded to is in fact a mainstream that is inherently multicultural and inherently multiracial, no matter what one may think. It was heartening to see the breadth of submissions to the joint committee inquiry, as much as it was saddening to see just how pervasive racism is in this country and the impact that it has had on diverse groups: the Greeks, the Italians, the Jewish community, Indigenous Australians and others. These people are not the minority to be relegated to some category of 'other', that is outside of the so-called 'mainstream'. They are the heart and the soul of this nation. And no matter how hard those on the other side like to imagine it, that dream that they have of white Australia never was and it never will be.
Mr Wallace: Madam Deputy Speaker, you said to show a little more respect for the chamber!
Dr ALY: You were laughing! The most important thing, the thing that unites us and those of the real mainstream of Australia is not the colour of our skin, where we came from, which boat our settler family came on or whatever but our commitment to our most beautiful values. We are committed now, and we will always be committed, to the fact that Australia is multicultural, is multiethnic and is a multiracial country, and we like it that way.
There is something disturbingly ironic about people who are all in support of freedom of speech when it allows them to spew racial hatred and bigoted invective yet want to silence those who call them out as racists and bigots. These people are on a special kind of power trip. They think that freedom of speech applies only to them—and not only that, they also want freedom from the consequences of their speech. I have been asked many times if I think Australia is a racist country, and I have always responded with a resounding no. I can say that because, despite the incidences of racism that I have experienced as a child and as an adult—and there have been many—the most profound sense I have of this country and her people is that we are not a nation that offends on the basis of race. We are not a nation that insults or humiliates other races. That is not who we are.
The other day I sat down with my little friend Noah, who has just turned six. I pulled up my sleeve and he did, too, and we compared the colours of our skin. It was very cute. I asked Noah if he thought that it was okay for him to tease me or say something nasty to me because my skin was darker than his, and he looked at me incredulously. 'No, Aunty,' he said, 'that would be wrong.' 'How do you know that, Noah?' I asked him. He smiled at me as if I was asking a very stupid question—which, in fact, I was—and a question to which I must have known the answer, and he simply said: 'Because it just is. Everyone knows it is.' Everyone, it seems, except for those on the other side of this House, who insist again and again that they have a right to offend, and that somehow offering protection and recourse for their fellow citizens—citizens that they are elected to represent—impinges on their own right to treat them as second-class because of their race. Perhaps they should take some time to talk to Noah. His mother describes him as six going on 60, and he does seem far wiser than some of the people in this chamber—people who claim some exclusivity to freedom of speech while they howl, 'How dare you!' when they are called out for their racism.
I would like to go back for a minute to the recommendations of the report and to specifically address recommendation 3 of the report that makes mention of the proposal to replace the words 'offend', 'insult' and 'humiliate' with the word 'harass'. You see, there is a difference between harassment and humiliation or insult or offence. Harassment, by its definition, leaves it open to argue that the offending behaviour must constitute an ongoing and protracted campaign against a person because of a characteristic such as race. Over the 30 years that the Racial Discrimination Act has been in place the meanings of the words 'offend', 'insult' or 'humiliate' have been clarified and tested in court such that the implications of these words have been established. Harassment is not imported in these definitions, and it is not, as the member for Goldstein has argued, the correct test for 18C. So, in considering this particular component of recommendation 3, I will take on board the submission from the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, which rightly points out that 18C currently operates so as to capture some of the forms of racial harassment because it captures acts which humiliate and insult.
On a final note, this morning the Treasurer made what I think is an adroit observation when he said:
I know this issue doesn't create one job, doesn't open one business, doesn't give anyone one extra hour. It doesn't make housing more affordable or energy more affordable.
Indeed, indeed. Hatred, fear and division have never provided the impetus or facilitated job creation or answers to the economic woes that beset us. So why does this government continue to insist on raising the topic again and again, even after the previous Prime Minister ruled out any changes to 18C? Even the previous Prime Minister—arguably one of the most damaging leaders in history in terms of his rhetoric and impacts on social cohesion, with his consistent reference to the death cult—could see that one person's right to be a bigot is rejected by a large majority of Australians. Yet this Prime Minister is beholden to those on his backbench driven by their own biases and their own prejudices—people like those opposite me, who have never had to live with the damaging impacts of racism.
A government member interjecting—
Mr Gosling: It's true.
Dr ALY: Oh, it is true.
The member for Dawson, in his speech this morning, sought to reduce this entire debate to a one-dimensional argument about freedom of speech, and in doing so he made the astounding claim that racism causes no individual harm. All he could muster was less than five minutes of demanding that 18C be repealed, as if somehow that constituted an argument. It is particularly astounding because people like him have never had to hold their child's hand in theirs and explain the tears they are shedding because of the hatred directed at them. They are people who have never had consistently to defend their very existence in this country, despite being productive and high-achieving citizens of Australia. It is a sad indictment of the ability of those members of parliament to represent all Australians if they cannot, or will not, attempt to step outside their own experiences and empathise with the people they represent here.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (17:31): I am delighted to rise today to speak about the inquiry into the operation of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act and related procedures under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. May I say that this debate has been at a standstill since 2011, and it is the Turnbull government who initiated this inquiry through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I applaud this bipartisan committee, who prepared a report which is balanced and solution focused in relation to section 18C and associated debate.
May I first address the comments of the member for Cowan, who makes the incredible assumption that no-one on the other side of the House has experienced racism or discrimination. As the member for Chisholm and of immigrant heritage myself, I have paid close and specific attention to this debate. I am so incredibly proud of the people of Chisholm, who I represent in this House. Chisholm is the third most culturally diverse electorate in Australia. It covers 65 square kilometres in Melbourne's urban east and represents a kind of microcosm of this great country. Indeed, we are the most successful multicultural nation on this earth, enjoying a non-discriminatory migration policy which is underpinned by the value of respect embraced by the Turnbull government.
In November 2016, leaders of 10 multicultural community groups made an important statement on the Racial Discrimination Act. The statement was made by peak bodies, including leaders from the Chinese, Jewish, Vietnamese, Greek and Arabic communities. The groups said:
We do not believe that any case has been made to alter sections 18C and 18D of the RDA …
Sections 18C and 18D of the RDA have been key components in the array of legislative and educative tools used by each of our communities in our efforts to counter-act racism. We are deeply concerned that a change to the substantive terms of sections 18C or 18D … would weaken those efforts …
Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act, in my view, should not be changed. The case has not been made to do so. The case, however, has been made to make process changes to ensure that respondents are more fairly treated, and I support the recommendations of the committee.
I have over 20 years experience as a legal practitioner and have always regarded the principle of 'the spirit and intention of the law' to be paramount. I also know full well the inherent risk and burden of litigation. I have observed my fair share of vexatious or unmeritorious litigants in my time. Albeit that section 18C plays an important role in our multicultural society, it was always intended as a limited protection to be used only in the most serious cases. The way the law is currently being administered allows too many nuisance complaints or vexatious cases.
My view is that the pain is in the process. The pain of having to endure the burden of the prospect of lengthy and/or expensive litigation and dealing with the legal process should never have had to be endured by, for example, the Queensland university students or Bill Leak, the cartoonist. Most of the issues related to section 18C concern process matters rather than substantive outcomes under the law. They have caused distress and anxiety and gone too far. They have created, as I said, pain in the process.
The report highlights the clear process issues with administration of the act and makes a number of pragmatic and sensible recommendations in this area, with the unanimous support of the bipartisan committee—something which the member for Cowan could take note of. The report makes several recommendations to fix the complaints-handling process relating to the handling of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. These include providing greater assistance to respondents to match what is currently afforded to complainants; imposing time limits on notifying respondents and on the complaints-handling process more generally; ensuring section 18D defences are considered by the commission in assessing complaints; giving the commission greater powers to terminate complaints earlier in the process; restricting access to the courts following the commission's termination of a complaint; providing penalties for legal practitioners instituting complaints that have no reasonable prospect of success; and providing more parliamentary oversight to the commission.
I note the comments in The Australian today by Mr Tony Morris QC, who defended the Queensland university students in the case that was brought against them under section 18C. To paraphrase Mr Morris, he said that the recommendations are not what some of those who oppose 18C wanted but that they would do the job. He said:
The best part is the combined effect of all the protections they are proposing to put in for respondents to complaints … If the report's recommendations are adopted, it will lead to a level playing field so that respondents enjoy rights similar to complainants.
Addressing these process issues is unanimously accepted by multicultural communities around Australia.
The committee has unanimously recommended a range of changes which will support the spirit and intention of the law—that is, that only the most serious of cases should come under section 18C. If implemented, these changes will avoid unnecessary, unmeritorious or vexatious litigation claims proceeding. The committee has recommended these changes to improve the operation of the existing law. In my view, if implemented, they will make it very difficult for these unmeritorious or vexatious litigation matters to proceed, will put respondents on a much more equal footing, will give respondents the ease and comfort of knowing that they will not be caught up in a vexatious litigation process, and will ensure that the spirit and intention of the law in section 18C and 18D are properly implemented.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (17:38): I am pleased to be able to speak on this issue, particularly because this morning I spent a short but reflective time thinking about the tradition of Ash Wednesday. I saw the member for Fisher in here earlier; I know he is a good Christian fellow. I started thinking about what the start of Lent means, and a little bit of the reading that I did talked about the injunction for people to 'weep with those who weep'. I have seen a lot of people in my life weeping because they have been humiliated, they have had their racial profile used to analyse them, and they have been the subject of quite vicious verbal and sometimes physical attacks. That is not usual for Caucasian, or European, people, but the member for Canning reminded me just before that you cannot always assume that there are certain types of people who are never subject to racial hate speech or worse. He also reminded me that when I was a young man I was the subject of a racial attack. It hurt me at the time, and I remember thinking, 'What did I do to deserve that?' So I know exactly how people feel who are on the receiving end, and it did not take me long, as I matured into a man, to realise that the people who had attacked me in that way were doing so after many decades, even centuries, of being on the receiving end of absolute prejudice almost to the point of genocide. So I kind of understood the psychological trauma, the intergenerational harm that is done, when race is used to attack people.
The fact that we have people in the parliament who are using this issue as a platform for internal issues to do with a political party, and because they are concerned about another political party, is, quite frankly, disgraceful. There may be a small part of our community who might agree that we need to change these parts of the Racial Discrimination Act, but my gut feeling is that it is very, very small. I think if they were to look a bit deeper into their hearts they would realise that we do not want to be that sort of country. How on earth are we going to lift up the horizons of the whole Australian people by championing causes that weaken protections of other Australians against race hate? How are we going to do that? How are we going to bring Australia together as a proud, confident and multicultural country when we have leaders who seek to use an issue like this for their own political ends?
I believe that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have downplayed many of the opinions, as I have said, of the Australian people. I believe that. I believe they have downplayed the majority of community groups, professional organisations and legal experts they heard from. Nevertheless, the government members on that committee did not recommend any changes. They clearly preferred the retention of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form. I understand that that must have annoyed a lot of people on the other side who are seeking to use this issue, but the sense of social justice that I was brought up with, regardless of the racial attacks that were made against me, says to me, without a second of thought, that I would never favour any amendment of this act that weakened the protections of my fellow Australians against race attack. I just would not do it. Section 18C is already subject to the limitations of 18D. I do not think it restricts fair freedom of speech at all. But, as the member for Cowan rightly said before, repealing 18C, as the member for Fisher said he wanted to do, would send the wrong signal to our community. It is the wrong type of leadership for our country. It is wrong law—it is bad law. It would be wrong law to change that act and, as I have already said, the motives would be wrong.
I want to spend some time repeating what many in my electorate of the Northern Territory have said on this issue. I think the comments of Ms Penelope Taylor, the former head researcher at the Larrakeyah National Aboriginal Corporation, are worth mentioning here. Penelope said:
… the reality is that groups such as Aboriginal people do not have the same level of freedom of speech as the groups that we seem to be advocating for by talking about amending this provision.
They do not have the same life experience. Her evidence is based on the results of a three-year project which interviewed over 500 Aboriginal people residing in Darwin about their views on race relations. I am just sending this message very clearly from old Darwin, in my electorate—from those old families, generations of old families, that have accepted people from all over the world onto their country: they have deep concerns about any weakening of these provisions, and they wonder why anyone on earth would want to do it. I share their frustration—why would anyone want to weaken these protections?
Penny's concern is shared by Sally Sievers, the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner of the Northern Territory and whose organisation has been unable to discuss this inquiry in-depth with all the stakeholders they wanted to because of the short timeframe. I was also a bit sceptical about why the inquiry was conducted in such a hurried manner. Many people were not aware of the inquiry, but it is with strong conviction and strong confidence that I speak for the overwhelming majority of my electorate when I say that repealing the RDA is not a good idea. I am glad that the committee in their report did not recommend that, and I am glad that they have recommended that more education is needed on the issue.
We have had so many reports on this matter—we have had the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Australian Law Reform Commission report into multiculturalism and the law. All of those reports go towards making an RDA that works for our country, that enables a fair balance between the freedom of speech and the freedom of people to be protected from race hate. That is why it should continue in its current form, and I hope we can move on quickly from this low point in the life of this parliament and be a better Australia.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (17:48): In November of last year leaders of 10 cultural community groups in Australia made an important statement on the Racial Discrimination Act. That statement was made by a range of peak bodies, including leaders from the Chinese, Jewish, Vietnamese, Greek and Arabic communities. Those communities all came together to make a statement about their views on the Racial Discrimination Act, and I think it is worth quoting that statement in part. The group said:
We do not believe that any case has been made to alter sections 18C and 18D of the RDA.
They went on to say:
Sections 18C and 18D of the RDA have been key components in the array of legislative and educative tools used by each of our communities in our efforts to counter-act racism. We are deeply concerned that a change to the substantive terms of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act would weaken those efforts.
I note that the committee report does not make any such recommendation to change sections 18C or 18D. This is appropriate—the sections should not be changed.
The report does highlight the clear process issues with the administration of the act and makes a number of compelling recommendations in this area. I note that these recommendations were made with the unanimous support of the committee. It is very important to note that the vast majority of the issues raised in relation to section 18C concern process matters rather than substantive outcomes under the law; in particular, it is clear that claims with very limited or no merit have been allowed to proceed much too far. This has caused a great deal of distress to respondents and has often required them to spend substantial amounts of money defending baseless claims. That is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.
I note in an article in The Australian today that Mr Tony Morris QC, who was the legal counsel for the QUT students in the recent case under the 18C legislation, made some comments in relation to the committee's report. In that article, Mr Morris said:
The recommendations are not what some of us who oppose 18C wanted, but I suspect they will do the job. The best part is the combined effect of all the protections they are proposing to put in for respondents to complaints. If the report's recommendations are adopted, it will lead to a level playing field so that respondents enjoy rights similar to complainants.
Again, it is clear that there have been significant process issues in the administration of this act, but the way to deal with process issues is to deal with process issues—not to change the substantive act itself.
The need to address those process issues is also accepted by multicultural communities. In their submission to the inquiry, the Multicultural Communities Council of New South Wales, the National Sikh Council of Australia, the Chinese Community Council of Australia, the Vietnamese Community in Australia and the Macedonian Orthodox Church at Rockdale all came together and made the following observation:
We support the ‘filtering’ of complaints that can easily be identified as frivolous, vexatious or clearly having no reasonable chance of success through the application of a standard that should be met before proceeding further with the complaint.
There is very wide agreement here that the process needs to be addressed to ensure that vexatious and unmeritorious claims do not proceed for months or years, tying up the legal process and requiring respondents who have clearly not breached the act to be tied up in endless litigation. I do not think there is anyone who thinks that that is appropriate, and the committee makes some very thoughtful recommendations about how to fix that problem. If you fix the process problems, it seems to me that the vast majority of the issues that are debated publicly about the provisions of this act will be addressed. Indeed, Mr Morris, who was the advocate for the QUT students, has acknowledged precisely that.
The committee has unanimously recommended a range of changes to improve the operation of existing law and, if they are implemented, these changes will make it much harder for unmeritorious or vexatious claims to proceed and will put respondents on a much more equal footing with complainants. There are a range of recommendations and they are quite comprehensive, but I would like to touch on a few of them, starting with recommendation 6 in the report. The committee recommends changes to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to make it clear that dispute resolution should be provided as early as possible; that the type of dispute resolution should be appropriate to the dispute; and that the dispute resolution process should be fair to all parties, among a number of other points that have been made there. The committee also recommends that the act be amended to empower the commission to offer reasonable assistance to respondents consistent with the assistance offered to complainants. That does not happen at the moment and that has led to some of the justifiable concerns about the administration of the act.
In recommendation 8, the committee makes some important recommendations in relation to time limits because so much of this issue comes back to lengthy delays. The committee recommends that the commission be required to put in place time limits for the initial assessment of the complaint, so that it cannot go on for ever and ever, and for notification to the respondents of the complaint in regard to investigation and conciliation—so putting in place clear time lines for dealing with these things in a much more expeditious manner. The committee also recommends that a greater onus be put on the complainant: that they be required to allege that the act, if true, would constitute unlawful discrimination; that they be required to set out the details of the alleged contravention; that they put in place a refundable complaint lodgement fee—which is an important initiative; and, importantly, that legal practitioners representing complainants be required to certify that in their view the complaint has reasonable prospects of success. The committee also recommends that, where the conduct of the complainant or practitioner has been unreasonable, the commission be empowered to make orders about reasonable costs being issued against practitioners and complainants in order to prevent frivolous claims. These are all very sensible recommendations. It is good to see that the committee was able to come together with commonsense recommendations, and I would certainly support them.
Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act should not be changed. The case has not been made to do so. The case has most definitely been made that changes to process are required to ensure that respondents are more fairly treated, and I support the recommendations of the committee in this regard.
I would like to thank the many groups who made submissions and contributions to the inquiry process. Many of the community groups in my electorate, and indeed right across Australia, feel strongly about this issue and made important submissions to the committee process. I thank them for their diligence in doing so. I would like to particularly highlight the efforts of the Chinese Australian Services Society—CASS—which, under the leadership of Tony Pang, has made a number of very pertinent points in relation to these matters. I would also like to thank the members of the committee for their work. It is a comprehensive report. There were literally hundreds of submissions and, in a timely manner, the committee has come forward with some very sensible recommendations in relation to process. I would like to thank in particular the member for Berowra, who has applied himself to these very important issues with his customary intellect and sincerity. I thank the committee for their report.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (17:58): While the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights into freedom of speech in Australia and the operation of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act is a reasonable one, the tale that brings the chamber to consideration of this report is, however, a sorry one. The coalition's obsession with section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act reflects nothing more than their obsession with themselves. The debate about section 18C inside the Liberal Party and inside the coalition is not a debate about the concerns of everyday Australians. There are no barbecues being stopped across our nation by people demanding the 'right to be bigots', as the Attorney-General famously phrased it. As the member for Bennelong put it, as he told ABC's AM, the campaign to change section 18C is a 'fringe issue'. He said:
If you did a ranking of the top 10 … it wouldn't be in the top 100.
He is certainly right. I live in one of the most multicultural electorates in Australia and I have received barely a handful of letters from constituents seeking changes to these provisions in the nearly four years that I have been in this place. We are comfortable living in the most successful multicultural nation on earth, and Australians understand that some minor restraints on the more extreme expressions of racial abuse have helped strengthen community cohesion. Only a government that is as out of touch as the Turnbull-Abbott-Turnbull government could think that the public are clamouring for a years-long debate on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, when penalty rates are being cut for 700,000 Australians, when wages growth is at an all-time low, when underemployment is at an all-time high and when they are worried about the future of Medicare. These are the barbecue stoppers across the suburbs of Australia.
Nor, however, is the debate around section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act—in the Liberal Party, at least—a debate around Australian national identity or the kind of society that we want to build in this country. We are not talking here about how to protect one of the most successful multicultural societies on earth or how to strengthen it as we become increasingly diverse in the future. Instead, this debate is about two things and two things only. Firstly, it is an ideological plaything for the 'glibertarians' who have entrenched themselves in the state branches of the Liberal Party. Secondly, it is a tool for leadership game playing inside the Liberal Party, a cat's paw for promoting instability and leadership jockeying.
This is exactly what we saw in the first week of this parliament. In the first week of parliament after the election win by the new leader of the coalition, Malcolm Turnbull, and before the Governor-General's speech had even been delivered, all but one of the coalition Senate backbench joined with One Nation to sign a notice of motion to gut 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. It was an intervention designed deliberately to humiliate their supposed leader, the Prime Minister, in his first week in parliament after the election campaign. Since then, the issue has been continuously exploited by the member for Warringah, suspiciously, in the lead-up to Newspoll, entering the field with his band of 'deplorables'—and I acknowledge 'deplorables' who are with us here today; you are adorable to me!—the drongos who yearn for the return of the king and, presumably, knighthoods. As a result, the mere mention of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in coalition circles is like adding a drop of blood into shark-infested waters—it produces a frothing and a churning beneath the water's surface, particularly in the bowels of the coalition party room.
It is like this issue brings those opposite back into the fray of student politics, arguing more and more passionately about issues further and further away from what matters to the vast majority of the Australian population. Why is it that this issue, the issue of protections against hate speech in the Racial Discrimination Act, is the freedom-of-speech issue that winds up conservatives in Australia so much? Why weren't the party room dissidents barking when Malcolm Turnbull's former chief of staff launched defamation proceedings over an insulting televised comedy act? They lay doggo when the member for Warringah and Peter Costello sued an Australian author for writing offensive falsehoods about their wives. The guard dogs of free speech were silent when former Treasurer Joe Hockey sued TheSydney Morning Herald for its reporting on fundraising activities in his electorate. Where were the full-page newspaper ads from the IPA during any of these restraints on free speech? No-one has suggested dismantling the law of defamation every time a defamation plaintiff loses a case or every time there is an unhelpful proceeding—not even when a bloke sues a newspaper over the depiction of his mullet, as we saw before the courts last year, or when the father of a chief executive of Swisse vitamins sues over his depiction by a comedian on ABC consumer show The Checkout. No, the free-speech claxon of the 'glibertarians' who have taken over the right of Australian politics today remains silent.
Why aren't they up in arms about restraints on free speech imposed by defamation law? When asked about this cognitive dissonance, they will give you tortured philosophical justifications about individuals having a property right to their reputation, while the impact of a group's vilification is unable to be quantified and as such is worthless of protection by the law. The reality is, however, that they care about this because this one is the only constraint that they will be subject to. The other is a constraint that they are likely to transcend. A free-speech equation for these glibertarians in the coalition party room is simple: rights constraints that protect powerful people—good; rights constraints that protect vulnerable groups—bad.
As I intimated earlier, the Australian community takes a very different view. When, in the first term, the Abbott-Turnbull government the coalition sought to dismantle section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act there was a mass uprising against this move in multicultural communities across Australia, many of them in my electorate. They campaigned against the 18C changes, under the member for Warringah, and Labor was proud to campaign with them. We were pleased when the previous Prime Minister backed down on this foolish and unnecessary change. The current Prime Minister still refuses to close the door on making the same mistake.
In the report that we are considering the debate here today, the parliamentary committee—set up to water down race-hate speech—has found no basis to recommend any changes to the substance of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Those opposite often like to say, 'Forget about substance; it's the process that's the punishment under section 18C.' They act like any unsuspecting member of the public engaging in good faith political debate could be caught by the provision, ignoring utterly section 18D of the act that contains exemptions designed to protect, exactly, this behaviour and limiting and protecting from the reach of the act artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest.
Still, they say the process is the punishment—as though a complaint to the Human Rights Commission under section 18C triggers some kind of modern Star Chamber. The reality is far from it. The Human Rights Commission's focus is on resolving disputes so parties can avoid court proceedings. Of complaints where conciliation was attempted, 76 per cent were successfully resolved in 2015-16. In 2015-16, in the reporting year, the average time it took the commission to finalise a complaint was 3.8 months. In that same reporting year 94 per cent of surveyed parties were satisfied with the commission's service. To be blunt, the process under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is far better than what a respondent would confront in any defamation proceeding.
Those opposite advocating change have built the biggest straw man since burning man. They dance around their creations in fervours of ideological rupture. As the saying goes: you should dance like no-one is watching. And coalition members of parliament dance around their section 18C burning man without a care for what anyone in Australia watching might think.
If Prime Minister Turnbull proceeds with changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, in light of all of this, it will be entirely his choice to do so. If the Prime Minister has any backbone at all he should use the publication of this report to kill off any attempts to water down and reform section 18C and the vital protections it provides for social cohesion in our community once and for all. This is a problem that exists only in the fevered dreams of conservative ideologues within the coalition party room. It is not a problem that exists in the suburbs, in the backyards, at the barbecues of Australians around our nation.
The protections of the Racial Discrimination Act were important when they were introduced. There are even more important today. I am proud to be a member of a Labor Party that has fought those who have sought to gut this provision over the last four years of the Abbott-Turnbull government.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (18:08): The parliament has spent too much time on this. When I move through the country and my own electorate I can honestly say that I am not bowled over by people who are saying to me we need change on 18C. I can honestly say that it has never happened to me. It is a boutique issue that is more controversial in the coalition party room than it is in the community.
That should not always be the marker for what we spend time on in this place, but it is relevant. Quite often we speak about things that are not a heated exchange within the community but are important to the fabric of our nation or to the future of our democracy. This is not one of them. I note that in the last 12 months only 77 complaints were made under 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and fewer than four of those complaints ever proceeded to court.
I want to contrast that with complaints that were made to the Fair work Ombudsman. Last year alone, over 400,000 calls were made to the Fair Work Ombudsman, over 340 infringement notices and 118 compliance notices were issued and over 50 court proceedings were initiated. I stand with those who say these are things that we probably should spend more time debating in this chamber, and as you make your way around the community I am sure you will find the treatment of people in the workplace, particularly our young people, to be an issue of greater concern than something that most people have never heard of, section 18C of a piece of legislation.
The member for Warringah joined the debate again last week. He is a political bull in the coalition china shop. In opposition he promised that he was going to be the champion of free speech in this country. As Prime Minister he did consider amending this part of the law. He back-flipped on that, for good reason. Presumably, he was advised and accepted the advice, not only of security agencies but of the rest of his cabinet and of the rest of his backbench, and of all the government agencies who know something about this. He learned that repealing 18C—in fact, even raising this matter in the way it was being raised—was going to take Australia down a self-defeating path. It was going to be against our national security interests. He learned that to maintain our personal safety and national security it is necessary to work with the community, and particularly community leaders, to ensure that Australian values prevail, to ensure that the freedom of speech that we cherish is not compromised. Law does have a place in protecting us, in helping us to meet the existential challenge of national security threats, but we win the battle with our enemies when we win the battle of ideas. Laws are good but culture is much more pervasive. Freedom from hate speech, I argue, is better done by example, and we have a place in this House in setting the example.
There are some people who want to duplicate the politics of the newly installed President in the United States and see that as a pathway to political success. They must be resisted. What we say, what we tolerate, what we amplify, what we condone, what we condemn in this place sets a powerful example to the rest of the community. The hate speech that has been directed recently against the CEO of Australia Post is a case in point. For mine it was a sad day when in the Australian parliament a man who has led the recovery of an organisation that employs around 30,000 Australians in just about every town in the country, including jobs in regional and rural areas, had to address the personalised denigration of himself and his religion. It should be irrelevant. Mr Fahour told a Senate estimates hearing this week that he was proud to be an immigrant who came to Australia, who has worked hard, who has worked his way up to some of the highest positions in the finance industry and now in a government business enterprise. He is proud, and we should be proud of him as well. His success is an answer to the ugly bigotry against those of the Muslim faith or any other faith for that matter. He said:
The law of this country is the most important thing for me - through the law it allows us to practice privately our beliefs and to live peacefully and contribute and that’s what it’s all about, contributing.
What more could we ask of those who come from another country or who have another faith from those we share than to contribute in that way?
Australia's successful multicultural nation is the shining testament that makes a mockery of those from ISIL and their fellow travellers, in this community and elsewhere. The Racial Discrimination Act helps to maintain the sensible boundaries of freedom of speech within our multicultural society.
Freedom of speech has never been unrestrained in this country, from the time of the first convicts. It was restrained at first by lash, then by law, but more forcefully by social norms—by social norms about the things that we find it acceptable to say and not say in this country. We are a nation that celebrates our egalitarian nature, but we have to understand and acknowledge, particularly as representatives of our electorates in this place, that everybody has an equal right to say things within the boundaries of the law, but we also have to acknowledge that not every voice has the same force. So, when we stand up in this place or in our electorates or somewhere else and say things—in fact, whether it is said at the pulpit or the mosque or the synagogue or the dispatch box—we have a responsibility for the things that we say and the social forces that they unleash.
I want to say a few things to my friends on the Left of Australian politics, because the comments that I have made so far might fairly be directed at those on the political Right, to the extent that those terms mean anything. I say to those on the political Left that we cannot condemn the attacks on the free speech of publications like Charlie Hebdo while demanding at the same time that a cartoonist like Bill Leak be sacked or vilified because he has published a cartoon that we do not agree with. As much as I might find that cartoon nasty or tasteless, we cannot be doing both of those things at once. So my answer, if you find that cartoon or that publication offensive, is: don't buy it, don't read it—or, better still, do a better cartoon, a funnier cartoon, a more pertinent cartoon that responds to those sorts of things.
We have to find the balance, and I think our current laws find that balance between freedom of speech and freedom from hate speech. I think we have spent enough time already in this parliament debating these things when there are so many other things that should be occupying our consciousness, our time and our efforts in this place. I happen to think that the fight against racism and intolerance is something that we should do every day; we should do it by example. We should do it by the things that we condemn and the things that we condone, the things that we amplify, the things that we praise. But let us not waste the valuable time and the valuable resources of this important institution by occupying ourselves with something that is going nowhere. The majority of Australians will shake their heads and say: 'We elect you to deal with more important things and things that are directly relevant to our day-to-day lives. We want to see you fighting for a better education system, for jobs and job security, for the future of our industries, for the future of our health system.' These are the things that we should be focusing on, not this.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (18:19): At the beginning of my remarks, I send a big shout out to the people in my electorate who I know will be listening to this speech and will be commenting on my speech on social media. We do have a small element in Bendigo who say they believe in free speech but are caught up in a movement that tries to deny free speech and freedom of religion to a group of people in our community. Unfortunately, my town became well known throughout the world for some very ugly protests about the building of our first mosque. It is both a sad story and at the same time a happy story for our community. I say it was happy because the City of Greater Bendigo council made a planning decision and approved the development, the planning application, of the city's first mosque.
We at the time had a relatively small Bendigo Muslim community of about 200 people. They are our doctors. They are our engineers and academics. They are people who are well regarded and respected in our community. They are also some refugees from Afghanistan working at Hazeldene's in the chicken-processing facility. They are people who volunteer a lot of their time. Many of them love their soccer. Women enjoy swimming, swimming with their children and teaching their children to swim. They are a big part of our community. So it was quite a shock to many in Bendigo that a small group, predominantly people from outside, opposed the development of the mosque.
Most of you know what happened next. There were some ugly protests in Bendigo. A lot of people from outside our town came in, whipped up a lot of fear and whipped up a lot of anger, opposing the building and the development of the mosque. They said that they had the freedom to do that under freedom of speech, but what they were doing in its defence was denying other values. Those other values are so strongly held in belief in this country: freedom of religion, freedom of culture—the ability in this country to share our values and to share our beliefs as long as we do not hurt or hinder others.
There was an incident in particular—and this matter is still before the courts—on 4 October that just demonstrates the difference between this group saying that they should be able to do this because it is free speech and how outraged the community were, saying: 'No, that's not free speech. You've overstepped the mark.' This particular group, members of an anti-Islamic group, the United Patriots Front, gathered out the front of the Bendigo council building. They cut off the head off a small dummy with a black mask, spilling fake blood on the ground, just metres away from the council entrance. The United Patriots Front describe themselves as a national movement opposing the spread of 'left-wing treason' and the spread of Islam. The group said that this was an act of free speech. It is not.
The group has since been charged. A 34-year-old man from Frankston, a 45-year-old man from Wallan and a 31-year-old man from South Morang—noting that none of them are actually from Bendigo; all are from outside—have been charged with making a video with the intent of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion of, a person or a class of people, a charge brought under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 of Victoria. They have also been charged with defacing the footpath in front of the council building as well as wilful damage to the footpath, wall and garden.
This is not free speech, and I support the actions of the police and the Victorian government in bringing charges against these three men. This was, in my opinion, an act of violence. This was an act that was about inciting fear, about provoking fear, about dividing our community, by outsiders who came in to hold the most disgraceful of protests, a mock beheading. Yet they try to hide behind the term 'free speech'.
We all get the opportunity to participate in citizenship and Australia Day activities. With freedom of speech comes great responsibility. I, like lots of people, have received emails that say, 'The simple truth is that my mind and my mouth are my own,' but, the moment you speak in a public forum like this and people hear you, it is what you say, so that you are not then impinging on somebody else's democratic rights and values. We have to take responsibility for our actions. We have to take responsibility for what we say. That is because it is about the community that we live in. The email goes on to say, 'What you do with them does not amount to violence. Only physical actions do.' That is such an outdated view. Say that to the victims of family violence. Before there is physical violence, there is verbal abuse. Say that to people in the workplace who are harassed, who face discrimination. In Australian society, we now pull people up when they harass, when they intimidate, when they use words in a violent way. The idea that you can verbally abuse somebody but, because it is not physical, it is still freedom of speech is wrong.
Labor has been and will always be a staunch supporter of free speech. However, free speech does come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech is a value and, like many values, must always be counterbalanced with competing values. In Australia, as in all Western democracies, there are a number of ways in which freedom of speech has always been constrained to benefit our community. I have mentioned a few. Others which are quite common are our defamation laws—allowing an individual to pursue protection of their reputation—and our consumer protection laws. Even here in our own parliament there are restrictions on what MPs can say, even when we have parliamentary privilege. We always pull people up if we believe they are impinging on somebody else's other rights. That is the responsibility that we take on board.
For over 20 years, since the Racial Discrimination Act was enacted by the Keating government, section 18C has embodied our nation's commitment to stopping racial vilification—a protection for our citizens and our society from the poisonous effects of hate speech. Over that the time, its sister provision, section 18D, has operated to protect freedom of speech. I live in a part of the world that, when you look at the ABS statistics, may not reflect multicultural Australia. That is because a lot of the people who live in greater Bendigo have lived there for many generations. Our Bendigo Chinese community has lived in Bendigo for five or six generations. When these debates come up, they are always the first to speak up about their experiences in Australia. Whilst they embrace and celebrate multicultural Australia, they know that, without the protection of freedom of religion, without the protection of laws like 18C, they would continue to face ongoing racism. When the movie Romper Stomper came out, the Chinese museum, the Golden Dragon Museum, was defaced with a swastika and 'White Power' was sprayed across the fences. This is unacceptable, and the community rallied behind the Chinese community and the Golden Dragon Museum.
You can imagine, with all of this in the mix, how our community gets frustrated by these debates. These debates, which the Liberals continue to bring on, are purely about an ideological agenda. Weakening safeguards against hate speech will not create a single job. It will not help pensioners pay their bills or put money into the pockets of workers desperate for extra hours or to see a lift in their wages. All this government is doing is continuing to drive a wedge into our community, continuing to say to people like the United Patriots Front that what they are doing is okay, when it is not.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (18:29): Since entering parliament, I have spoken quite a bit about my experience as an Australian of Egyptian heritage and as one of the first ever African Australians elected to this parliament, alongside my colleague here, the member for Cowan. As Australians, we are part of a wonderful, diverse multicultural society—the best one in the world, actually. The benefits of a multicultural society are something I have promoted with pride throughout my working life. Before coming a member of parliament, I was briefly a Victorian Multicultural Commissioner and an executive director of SBS, both jobs where the remit was really to promote understanding and acceptance of the cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity of the Australian people. But, more than that, it was about arguing that our multicultural model works so well because we do not just tolerate but embrace diversity. That is the strength of our diversity as a nation. So obviously multiculturalism is dear to my heart.
While this report is notionally on the matter of freedom of speech in Australia, the substance of the report refers to and makes recommendations on the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act, an important legislative function of a multicultural society. I turn to the debate around section 18C of the RDA and, most specifically, to address the suggestion by some that it should be repealed or severely limited. As many in this place will know, this section of the RDA renders unlawful conduct which is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people on the basis of their race. This is a civil prohibition only. Section 18C does not create an offence or a crime. No-one can be charged or prosecuted. No criminal punishments can be imposed on those who breach it. Lawsuits under 18C are brought privately by victims, not by the government. It is not enough that a given person subjectively feels offended. In the suggestion that someone has breached 18C, the court must consider whether the relevant conduct is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate an ordinary and reasonable member of a racial group.
The Prime Minister has said changing the RDA is not on his agenda. We have heard this before. He has had an inclusive rhetoric and has talked about the importance of mutual respect—fine words. But, despite this, dismantling the RDA has remained an absolute obsession of the right wing of both the Liberal Party and the National Party—of the coalition. Meanwhile, Labor has consistently fought to protect the RDA from this ideological assault. The radical right-wing agenda displayed by some members of first the Abbott government and then the Turnbull government not only contradicts some of the rhetoric of the current Prime Minister but goes, I think, against the outcomes of this report, which has found no basis to recommend any changes to section 18C or 18D of the RDA. The recommendation of the committee's report that there be no change reflects the overwhelming weight of submissions from the public to this inquiry, which were strongly opposed to altering our longstanding protections against racial hate speech.
For over 20 years, section 18C has protected our community against racial hate speech, making it unlawful for a person to insult, humiliate, intimidate or offend someone because of their race or ethnic background. It was introduced as an amendment to the RDA of 1975 in 1994-95 under the Keating government, after several reports and long consultations, including some recommendations arising out of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. I note that section 18C survived 11 years of the Howard coalition government without any proposal for amendment or repeal.
Despite this, the current Prime Minister continues to face a serious split in his own party on the subject of section 18C and those who want—to use the words of Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General—'a right to be bigots'. How remarkable that the first law officer of this country could make such a statement. He is supposed to understand the law. Let me just explain: there is no positive right to be a bigot or a racist. It does not exist. There is a right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but with that comes responsibility—a responsibility not to exercise that freedom in a hateful and discriminatory way. He should know better. It is clear that Malcolm Turnbull is not in control of this agenda anymore.
I acknowledge that there are some opponents of 18C who have well intentioned motivations. The protection of freedom of expression is a legitimate consideration, as free speech is essential to our democracy. But I note that, as many other speakers have said, there are protections for members of the media and those truly acting in the public interest, provided by a subsequent section of the act, section 18D. Everyone forgets section 18D in this debate—or at least those on that side forget section 18D. Freedom of speech and freedom from hate speech are balanced in sections 18C and 18D, which have worked well, frankly, for decades. This balance has worked effectively. That is a fact which is rarely spoken about by those right-wingers who remain obsessed with watering down the RDA.
I spoke in my first speech in parliament about what it was like for a kid of a migrant family from Egypt growing up in Australia during the seventies and eighties. Racism was much more overt in those days and was considered acceptable—probably the norm by some. I experienced my fair share directly, as I am sure my colleague would have as well. Some of the things I was called are probably best left unsaid in this chamber; they were that bad. So the catalyst for the RDA and section 18C carries some emotional weight for me, as I know it does for many other Australians. Nobody deserves to endure abuse based on their race or ethnicity, and those who use racial slurs as a weapon in debate deserve to be—must be—held to account. That is what the RDA does; that is what section 18C does. And it has done it so well for decades.
Recommendations 4 to 22 in the report are a variety of proposals for adjustments in the complaints process, improvements to the processes for dealing with complaints, designed to ensure it continues to operate in a streamlined manner. They also promote education of the community around the evils of racism. These are sensible recommendations, so I commend the committee for its recommendations on those matters. I wholeheartedly support the recommendations, because whatever issues and inconsistencies have occurred in the complaints process—and there have been a few of them—have been the fuel that those seeking to unwind 18C have poured on the fire of this concocted debate. It has been, frankly, a concocted debate, and an ideological one.
It is important to note that the RDA is not designed to create litigation; indeed, only a tiny fraction of RDA complaints end up in court. RDA complaints are conciliated with the assistance of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and that conciliation allows victims of racism to work with perpetrators to resolve their dispute in a mutually agreeable manner. The process is confidential and need not involve lawyers. The conciliator does not 'decide' anything; the parties are guided towards resolution of the issue themselves. Outcomes can include an apology, change of policy, or compensation as worked out by the parties. The conciliation process works very well, but of course it can be improved, and the committee has made a number of sensible suggestions there.
I ask those in favour of winding back section 18C, or removing it in its entirety, exactly what form of racial hate speech they wish they could use now that section 18C currently prevents them from using. What is it that they want to say that is so important? I have seen racism and hate speech on display up close and personal. It is ugly, it is hateful, it is disturbing and it goes to the core of one's being as a human being. It brings individuals who use it down and brings the entire society down, and of course it affects the victims. It goes against the basic decency and fairness that should be the foremost factor in our relations with each other. While I have seen the worst of people in this respect, I have also seen the best. Australia is a successful multicultural nation, and most Australians embrace all the wonderful things that come from living in such a diverse population. If you do not believe me, I have to mention my electorate of Wills. It is a very diverse electorate. Sixty per cent of the population come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Prejudice and bigotry are things that Australians en masse abhor and reject. Section 18C of the RDA captures those values very effectively, and on that basis it is important that we maintain 18C in its current form. I welcome this report, as it represents a part victory against those who still think the greatest priority for the Australian government should be legislating to give a green light to racist hate speech in our country. This government is an abject failure in prioritising what is actually important to Australians. I know I speak for my Labor colleagues when I say that our party values multiculturalism and believes that protections against racial hate speech are worth keeping. I hope—it may be a forlorn hope—that the findings of this report will be used by the Prime Minister to kill off attempts to water down 18C and the vital protections it provides. I might say that the Prime Minister should probably heed the advice provided in recommendation 2 of the report, which says:
Recognising the profound impacts of serious forms of racism, the committee recommends that leaders of the Australian community and politicians exercise their freedom of speech to identify and condemn racially hateful and discriminatory speech where it occurs in public.
I hope he will also refer his Attorney-General to that recommendation.
We see no evidence that the Prime Minister will stand up for ethnic communities. If he does not, we will do what we have always done: we will stand up together. We will oppose hate speech and join our voices in a loud chorus to oppose these unnecessary and ideological changes, and we will do so because it makes Australia a better country.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (18:39): How blessed are we to have these two people, the member for Wills and the member for Cowan, in the chamber? They are incredibly learned and, I would argue, a couple of Egypt's best exports to Australia. They are living evidence of how great a multicultural country can be.
I want to speak on the inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights into freedom of speech in Australia, specifically the operation of part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and related procedures under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. I strongly support the committee's findings that there should be no change to the substantive law, no change to section 18C, and I urge the Turnbull government to drop this hateful nod to past behaviours that no longer serve our community.
No change to 18C is a victory for multicultural Australia. It is a victory for ethnic communities across our country. It is a victory for holding our laws and ourselves to a higher standard. No change to 18C is a victory for decency. The debate is being driven, and it has always been driven, by the far Right of the Liberal Party, who cannot actually tell us what racial hate speech they want to be able to free to speak. As the Leader of the Opposition said today: 'What humiliating vitriol do they think the Australian government should encourage?' If anything, we should be strengthening protections against hate speech, not weakening them.
Like many in this place, I received many form letters from campaigns, from individuals, both for and against 18C, and I also received a number of heartfelt letters that had been penned personally. I would like to read one of these, which was sent from a constituent of mine from the town of East Maitland in my electorate of Paterson. She wrote:
Ms Swanson, please ask your Labor colleagues to block the changes to 18C. Freedom of speech blanketed across the board has its responsibilities, just like any other kind of freedom. The changes are being called for to give licence to anyone who feels like exercising their right to vilify anyone they like. Haven't Aborigines, Muslims, people with a disability and women of this country had enough of that already? Can our laws give some protection to 'underdogs', or do the intellectuals who have never been discriminated against get away with their nastiness because it is legal? Why would a decent country legalise the right to exercise hatred against minorities? We are not allowed to exercise the 'freedom' to hit people with a baseball bat because we don't like them, so we must also not be allowed to damage people psychologically by demeaning them with words. The Labor Party is better than this.
I wrote back to my constituent that, yes indeed, the Labor Party is much better than this. I wrote that Labor is a staunch supporter of free speech, has always been and will always be, but we recognise that free speech is not, and never could be, absolute. Freedom of speech is a value and, like many democratic values, it must always be counterbalanced against competing values. Australia is a multicultural society, and section 18C was introduced to help ensure that the dignity of all our citizens is respected. Section 18C upholds the dignity of the individual, including the most disadvantaged in our society, and section 18D provides a very broad exemption from liability for reasonable and good-faith artistic expression, academic work, debate or public commentary. Section 18D ensures that freedom of speech is protected.
I agree with many, many people and groups in our community who have voiced their objection to this narrow-minded campaign. Racism has no place in modern Australia. The Turnbull government should be setting an example by standing up to bigotry, not placating the far Right of the Liberal Party. How will political debate—or any debate, for that matter—be improved by changing our laws to permit public statements that are likely to offend or insult people on the basis of their race? This is something from a bygone era that has no place here.
I speak in favour of the comments made by the Labor members of the committee—the member for Moreton, the member for Brand, Senator Carol Brown and Senator Claire Moore—and I thank them for their diligence. They make the point strongly in their conclusions:
The current well established and well supported provisions strike the appropriate balance between freedom of speech and freedom from racial abuse and should be retained and strongly supported by all Australians.
As we are seeing with the Brexit vote in the UK, the election of Donald Trump in the US and the renewed popularity of Pauline Hanson's One Nation in Australia, racism will regularly raise its ugly head, especially whenever there is a marginalised or repressed minority. Even people who would otherwise lead decent lives can suddenly be caught up in racist hysteria, saying and doing atrocious things. I have worked in talkback radio; I can tell you that people have said the most atrocious things on the radio about other people. How can that ever be condoned? Social media has made it easier for hate speech to be instantly communicated and widely distributed, regardless of its accuracy or relevance.
As the Labor committee members wrote in this report:
Everyday Australians take their cues from the laws set by their Parliament.
People are not stupid, but they are persuadable, at times. Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act was introduced by the Racial Hatred Bill in 1995 by the Keating Labor government. It followed the handing down of three landmark reports by the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It also reinforced Australia's international obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The law is most definitely settled on this, both here—or it should be—and internationally.
The vast majority of people who gave evidence to the committee agreed that the law is settled. Only the most serious offending is captured by the provision. Complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission under Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act make up only 3.8 per cent of the commission's work—just 3.8 per cent.
There were only 77 complaints last year, and fewer than four complaints every year proceed to court. We have seen a few high-profile cases being hijacked for personal or political agendas, and they have been presented as though they are evidence that the law does not work. It is just bunkum.
On the contrary, there is evidence that the law does work. A vast array of evidence put forward to the committee agreed that any change to 18C and 18D would cause uncertainty and would likely create even more litigation and confusion. More importantly, changing 18C would send a dangerous message. It would send a message that it is acceptable to offend and insult another person on the basis of their race. Surely, in Australia, that is not an acceptable message for a government to send its people. The executive director of the Human Rights Law Centre, Mr Hugh de Kretser, told the committee:
… the debate around section 18C over the past few years is so highly charged and politicised that any perceived weakening … of the law will also be seen by those who are against 18C as enabling the kind of racial vilification that we try to prohibit through this law.
That is such an important statement. What message does it send to everyday Australians if we give a tick to this? What message does it send to those who have to deal with the issue of racism regularly and persistently? That it is acceptable? That they just have to wear it for the sake of free speech? I think not. Racism causes harm. It causes isolation. There is no doubt about that. We heard it from witnesses and we have heard it from our own parliamentarians. We see it in our communities. It causes poor mental health and high levels of psychological stress, and that stress compounds when the behaviour is repeated. What kind of a message are we sending to Australians who experience persistent racism? That you must wear it? I think not.
The ninth annual Closing the gap report has been a stark reminder of just how badly we are failing our Indigenous Australians. We are nowhere near closing the gap in life expectancy or in any other measure of health and wellbeing, for that matter. Do we want to compound these very real problems faced by our first peoples by saying they must endure racism for the sake of free speech? I know we do not. Racism has an economic cost as well. The committee heard from the Diversity Council of Australia. They said that, when we create workplaces that are inclusive and that tap into diversity, they are more productive. That is so important.
I want to leave you with one thought. As a girl, I was taught that civility costs nothing. My father taught me that lesson. But I say to you that a change in this law may be very costly to our country in so many ways that we have really no idea what the impact would be. Section 18C is there for a reason, and we should keep it, for good reason.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (18:49): I spent many years thinking that I was not racist. I live in the most extraordinary community. I quite often do not notice anymore if a person is wearing a hijab or not. For many years, I really thought that I was not racist. Then about five years ago I was driving along, really tired, and a woman crossed the road in front of me and caused me to slow down. My visceral response was based on some appalling stereotypes that I did not think I held and I thought, 'Where did that come from? I don't even believe that. I don't even believe the response I just had to that person. Where did that come from?' Then I realised that this stuff gets in. It gets in when you walk past and you hear it, when it is on television or when you are raised in a country town where people talk about the 'yellow hordes', as they did where I was raised. It gets in. The great challenge and the great joy of living in a community like mine is that you actually get to unpack it. You get to see these strange assumptions that you have made and you begin to enjoy the great complexity of diversity in front of you. It is hard, but it is a real challenge and it actually brings me joy.
But I only have to do that when I look at someone else; I do not have to do that when I look in the mirror. I know that there are kids in my area who are told every day that they are less valuable. I have had fathers in my office, worried. After 10 minutes of demonstrating their Australianness—I have never had to demonstrate mine, but they felt this need to demonstrate their Australianness in spite of my claims that they did not need to—they would then get to the point. They were worried about their five- and six-year-old sons and what poison was getting in because of this debate, and about how they would manage to raise those sons without that poison affecting their capacity to live the lives they should live. We in this place have an obligation to set laws that protect people from the poison that pours on them through racism and bigotry and that affects their capacity to live the life that they should live. That is our job in this place. It is quite clear that I do not believe that we have rights to be bigots. I clearly do not believe the attacks on the Racial Discrimination Act from the other side—in fact, quite the opposite. I think we have an obligation to make the laws that protect people from that poison as strong as we possibly can.
I want to explain this to people. There are very few people in my electorate who are concerned about the Racial Discrimination Act. I have had three people write to me, asking for us to support radical change to the Racial Discrimination Act, and many, many others who want it to stay as it is have written to me. But I am going to address the concerns of those who are worried about freedom of speech and how 18C might impact on that. I am going to start by explaining where it actually came from. The Racial Discrimination Act is actually about 40 years old, but 18C, and 18D, was introduced 20 years ago in response to a number of reports on racial violence—that was what was going on, racial violence—including the National Inquiry into Racial Violence, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the Law Reform Commission's report called Multiculturalism and the law and international treaty obligations, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Those of us who were younger in those days, who were in schools and universities, will remember some of the racial language that was used to describe people who looked different or came from a different part of the world. We remember that. So that is when it was introduced.
Since it was introduced, there have been 2,000 complaints—that is about 100 each year. Over that 20 years, 100 of those have ended up in court—that is about five a year. This is not something that has caused a massive attack on people's ability to speak freely; these are actually really small numbers. I would like to find another law where the number of cases that actually ended up in court was that small—100, that is five per year over 20 years. In 2013-14 there was a bit of a spike, with 116 cases. There were still only five that went to court, but there were 116 cases, and it dropped last year down to 77 cases, with three of those ending up in court. So this is not a massive landslide. For the people who think this is new, that it is growing and that it is escalating and becoming a massive problem, the numbers are actually very small and they are fairly consistent. There is actually good reason for that. The people who want us to be able to say whatever we like, whenever we like, when it comes to race—but not when it comes to business, older people or gender; just when it comes to race—only ever talk about 18C. And 18C says what you cannot say. But 18D is the one that protects freedom of speech.
18D is quite cleverly drafted. It says section 18C 'does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith' in the course of what might be summarised as public debate or fair comment, including artistic expressions. This means that one is free to give expression to racist ideas, including those that offend, if it falls within 18D's fairly broad definitions of reasonable speech. So in a public debate, if you make a point about policy or if you are just ignorant but say it in good faith, you are off the hook. This is why the vast majority of cases that are brought to the Human Rights Commission are resolved without going to court.
I want to read to you one that was resolved. It did not go to court. I want people to think about whether or not this is okay. This is a complaint under 18C. It says:
The complainant who is Hindu, of Indian ethnic origin and over 50 years of age was employed by the respondent mining company as an engineer. He claimed managers and supervisors:
- referred to him as an 'Indian bastard' and told him ‘Indians are fools and useless’, ‘you’re the next curry muncher on the list’ and ‘Indian c**ts can’t work for sh*t’;
- called him a ‘bloody Hindu’, asked him why Hindus 'pray to cows instead of eating them', said Hindus are ‘idiots’ and ‘rogues’ and told him to ‘go and eat beef’;
- told him ‘culturally we are a young organisation of an average age of 28 years old, except you old man’, called him a ‘bloody old fellow’;
- did not issue him with required work-related equipment such as a computer, a mobile phone and a licence to drive
And it goes on.
That was one case. Is that what we are saying is okay? Do the people who think we should wipe out 18C and 18D think that is okay? This man was in a workplace. There are probably other forms—bullying. Somehow bullying is not okay, but it is if it is about race. Bullying is not okay but if it is racial then go for it. This man was in a workplace. If this man is your neighbour and when you walk out in your backyard with your six-year-old child this is what you get, is that okay? If you walk down to the shops and this is what you get, is that okay? Is this what they mean by, 'You have a right to be a bigot'?
An honourable member interjecting—
Ms OWENS: Excuse me. I am sure you will have your chance. There are many other cases that are just like that. And you can read them all. You can read the cases, the summaries of them, that have gone before the Human Rights Commission. So when someone says you have a right to be a bigot I assume what they are saying is that this is okay, that it is okay for a person to be subject to that when they go shopping, when they go out in their backyard or when they get on a train. I can assure you it happens in our communities. We all know people who tell us of abuse they have received because they look different, they come from another part of the world, they have an accent that makes them stand out and they deal with this kind of abuse on a regular basis. It affects lives. And we in this place have an obligation to protect people from this kind of abuse.
The recommendations the committee has put forward are quite good. We could argue the detail of some of them but, essentially, what the committee has said is that there are not the grounds for changes to 18C and 18D but there are grounds to change the process, even though the number that end up in court are quite small.
Mr Morris, the lawyer who represented the QUT students, said these changes would do the job. They would level the playing field between both sides of the argument and they would reduce vexatious complaints. I would point out too that the Human Rights Commission has been asking for changes in the process for quite some time, so they are quite comfortable as well with improving the process to remove vexatious claims.
I will state it again: 2,000 complaints. That is about 100 a year. Five per year end up in court and there were three last year. This is not a massive landslide and we should protect people's rights to be protected from poison.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (18:59): The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report presented yesterday makes zero recommendations to change section 18C. It throws the ball back into the Prime Minister's court, probably because the ultraconservatives opposite want to make his life as difficult as possible. There is a very strong political element to this.
I was born at a time in the shadows of the Menzies government—I know that sounds like a long time ago—and I remember very much the sayings around at that time, which were presented as very okay: 'reds under the beds' and 'the yellow peril coming down from the north'. That was the sort of language that was used back then. Malcolm Turnbull said changes to section 18C were not on the agenda. I guess this means that he does not have any control of that anymore. The collective determination and the will of those opposite were hell bent on watering down the Racial Discrimination Act, but they could not even create a report that made a recommendation about it—that is how baseless their argument is.
In Barton, nearly 50 per cent of the community were born overseas or have a parent who was. The view in Barton is clear: hate speech should not be tolerated. In Hurstville, the Chinese community just want to live free of harassment, as do the Arab community in Bexley, the Macedonian community and the Greek community—and the list goes on. They all just want to get on with their lives. But they do want to know one thing: what exactly is it that those opposite think they cannot say now that they would want to say if 18C and 18D were removed? What is it that you think you will need to say then that you cannot say now? I think that is absolutely the question. We all have parliamentary privilege in this place, and I am urging you to say exactly what it is that offends, intimidates or insults on the basis of race. Say it in this place, and let the community decide for itself whether your concerns are valid.
Section 18C does not need to be changed. Those opposite are happy to completely ignore section 18D of the act, which is incredibly convenient, but previous speakers have made it very clear that that is the fail-safe in the act. Section 18D provides protections for cartoonists and for speech which is made in good faith. It protects free speech, which makes even more ludicrous the argument about 18C.
I want to ask all of the supposed free speech advocates on the other side: where are their voices on moves by their government to silence the free speech of critics of their own government on Centrelink robo-debt? And what about the surveillance of journalists and their sources? What about the refusal to comment on on-water matters? The fact is this is hypocrisy of the worst sort. They believe in the right to free speech when it suits them and on their terms. I have been the subject of racial abuse before; it was not pleasant. I see no reason to open the floodgates to that kind of talk. There simply is not any justification for it.
The whole debate is a distraction created by the incredibly out-of-touch ultraconservatives opposite. Let me come to those ultraconservatives: the ideologues, the malcontents. The same group arguing about 18C are the same group who do not want equality in marriage and the same group who will run—and they have told me this already—a no case for constitutional recognition of First Peoples. Why is it that same group of people seem to coalesce around these issues? This is why I am saying it is political. It is about destabilising the present Prime Minister and it is about running a right-wing agenda that is a complete distraction to the real issues and the real matters that affect the daily lives of people. What is it—as I said—that people cannot say now that they think they will be able to say if those protections are removed? It is division and it is politically motivated.
A complaint has been made about me to the commission under section 18C by several people. The complaint was made by several men. They took offence and said that I was racially motivated in saying that it seemed to me that most of the people—I think I was quite accurate, actually—who seemed to be running the case for changes to the Racial Discrimination Act are white males of a certain age. That, apparently, was enough for a number of those offended to take that complaint to the commission. Of course, it was vexatious and it was thrown out very quickly.
No-one should think that racism is not a real issue in this country. I will go to two issues to say that the spectre of racism rises up in a spectacular way. And as previous speakers have said, quite often I think people probably wonder what it was all about when the furore settles.
I will take people back to 2005 in Cronulla. That was an issue that got international attention . Essentially, it was an issue about people of the Muslim faith and people from the area that I represented at the time, Canterbury, wanting to swim at Cronulla Beach. The three days of ugliness that we saw in Sydney was something that I hope we never see again in this country. There was the usurping of the Australian flag and, in particular, of the Southern Cross symbol, which I think is a very important symbol for all of us in Australia. It has somehow been taken by those who committed those terrible acts in those days of the Cronulla riots.
Then we can think about the Australian Football League and the racism that Adam Goodes was subjected to in 2015. I know Adam personally; I am involved in his foundation as a supporter. Adam is a good man. It was not only what we saw and the reaction that we saw—and not only by the media—but also the lack of response by certain institutions that was just a reflection of just how deeply ingrained racism is in some parts of this country.
But the Racial Discrimination Act has served us well over a very long period of time. As the member for Parramatta said, 18C, and I think 18D—but certainly 18C—has been there for 20 years. I must point out to those on the other side—the malcontents—that it came in when John Howard was the Prime Minister.
We are an amazing country, and this debate belittles us all as Australians. It belittles us and it is an embarrassing discussion. I know very well, as do other people—particularly the member for Lingiari, who is sitting here beside me, and also the members for Hunter and for Longman—that the ebb of politics is very much that: it goes in and it comes out. It moves to the right, it moves to the left and it sits in the centre. This race to the right is ugly, it is demeaning and it is also lacking in any transparency. It lacks any transparency at all. What decency does is trumps all of those values. I suppose that 'values' is the word!
Mr Snowdon: Actually, it is probably the correct word to use in this debate!
Ms BURNEY: In the real way! It overcomes all of those ebbs and flows. That is what this side of the House will stand for very firmly. It was made clear by our leader in the House of Representatives today, it has been made clear by our shadow Attorney-General and by many other speakers who have been involved in this for a very long time. It has been made clear by all the speakers from the Labor Party on this side of the House.
Do not dress this up for anything other than a cynical, political grab for the right—a destabilisation and an ideological push from the malcontents and a small part of the Liberal Party.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (19:09): Firstly, I commend the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for its report. Whilst I note that it was effectively silent on sections 18C and 18D of the act, not making a recommendation was a smart thing. I do not believe there is really any appetite in this parliament for us to take on that issue, and we should not.
I was first elected to this place 30 years ago in July. Immediately prior to becoming a member of parliament I was employed to work for the now senator Patrick Dodson at the Central Land Council in Alice Springs. Prior to that, I worked with a great Australian, Dr HC (Nugget) Coombs, in the Central Desert. I am a bloke from Narrabundah. I was brought up here in Canberra. These jobs took me into the Northern Territory. With Nugget, I was employed to work with Pitjantjatjara people in the Central Desert in a very small community which in those days was roughly 12 hours on a dirt road southwest of Alice Springs in South Australia—in the corner of South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Because of the nature of communications in the bush in those days, there no smart phones—no phones to speak of at all. You would probably remember those days. The Royal Flying Doctor's sked was the only way you could communicate. You had to travel to see people. Almost always when I was travelling around the bush, although I had learnt Pitjantjatjara as a precursor to starting this work, I used to travel with an Aboriginal person.
This particular week we left Alice Springs together, drove out into the bush and were away for three or four days. Neither of us showered and we slept rough in the swag under the stars. It was just fantastic, with great company, many laughs and a lot of stories. On driving back we called into a roadhouse—I will not mention the roadhouse—to get breakfast. The two of us walked in—both as scruffy as one another, both unclean—and the people in this particular roadhouse refused to serve my Aboriginal friend. There was no difference between us, just the colour of our skin. So of course we immediately left.
A little while later, when I was working for the Central Land Council, I had a rather odd situation emerge. We went to the land council meeting at Kalkarindji, as I recall. It was a large meeting. I was driving back with a good friend of mine, a land council lawyer, and we stopped at a roadhouse to get a feed. The roadhouse operator refused to feed us, refused to serve us, because we worked for the land council—perverse, really perverse. That tells a story really about the nature of racism that has existed in parts of our country for far too long.
In the early eighties there was a land claim, with Nitmiluk National Park being talked about. I was working as a schoolteacher. In Katherine there was a claim over the Katherine Gorge, a Nitmiluk claim. There was a campaign of 'rights for whites'. I do not know whether you remember those days, but I remember them vividly, with all sorts of pejorative, insulting terms being used about Aboriginal people and their rights to land. You will recall the discussions in the mid-eighties—'83 to '84—around national land rights and the maps which were shown in Western Australia by, of all people, Brian Burke about blackfellas 'claiming your land'—pure racism. And then—
An honourable member: Bucketloads of extinguishment.
Mr SNOWDON: 'Bucketloads of extinguishment' by the then Deputy Prime Minister of this country, Tim Fischer, after the Native Title Act was passed and after the Wik claim. That was language which was replete in this parliament. We have come a long way since, thankfully. Those days are past us. But it is little wonder people want the protections of 18C and 18D. Why should they not want those protections? This still exists. People with hate in their hearts are prepared to insult and demean because of race. It is not only Aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islander people; it could be a Chinese person, someone from South-East Asia or someone from Africa. We know it happens, and somehow or other the rights of those people to say what they like to whom they like about what they like need to be protected. I do not think so.
We live in a wonderful country. We are proud of our multiculturalism. There have been many struggles over the years to combat the differences that have been perpetrated and swelled up as a result of people getting rights—in the first instance, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We should applaud that. It was less than a century ago that we had the Coniston massacre. We cannot justify these things, just as we cannot justify hate speech.
It is true that I think that the committee picks up in a very good way recommendations to change the way in which complaints are dealt with by the Human Rights Commission, and it proposes procedural changes and protections which will mean vexatious claims just get thrown out the door. It will make people justify what they are doing. It provides the capacity that, if a lawyer makes a claim, they are going to be held accountable under these recommendations. So these recommendations are good, and the committee ought to be congratulated for them.
Recommendation 2 of the committee says:
Recognising the profound impacts of serious forms of racism, the committee recommends that leaders of the Australian community and politicians exercise their freedom of speech to identify and condemn racially hateful and discriminatory speech where it occurs in public.
And we should. We have a responsibility to call it out, and we should. We should none of us take a backward step when we see someone being racially vilified or attacked in public or in the street because of the colour of their skin, because of their religion, because they are male, because they are female or because they might be gay. We cannot tolerate it, and we should not.
I suspect the Prime Minister, in his heart of hearts, does not want to go anywhere near changing this act, and I would say to him: don't, because if you do you will open a Pandora's box and you will not be able to put the lid back on. You will provide succour to some of the most virulent grubs in the country, and we should not do that. I respect the right of members of parliament to have different points of view and to articulate those points of view in this parliament, but I respectfully say to them: think very, very hard about going down the course of trying to change 18C.
As we know, 18D sets out the parameters within which section 18C functions and overrides 18C any time it applies, providing that 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith in the course of what might be summarised as public debate or fair comment, including artistic expression. That is a good protection and we should have it. We should have the right to say things strongly, absolutely. But there is no room for hate speech or vilification.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (19:19): When I was interrupted by the adjournment last night I was reflecting on the Hunter region, the place I have lived all my life, and more particularly reflecting on the change I have seen in the Hunter in the 21 years tomorrow I have represented that part of the world. I had been spending some time talking about the wonderful attributes of the Hunter region—I would like to do more of that but time is going to defeat me, so I will move on by saying the region has changed very significantly since the closure of BHP in around 1998. It is an increasingly wealthy and more economically diverse place than it ever was. We still have our problems and challenges, obviously—unemployment remains unacceptably high, although much lower than it was when I was elected in 1996. It was then around 13½ per cent—it got to three per cent at one stage during the height of the mining investment boom, and now it floats between five and six per cent. Youth unemployment remains too high, so we have some very solid and important work to do there.
I want to reflect on our energy future and indeed the energy future of the nation, because the reality is that we are heading for an energy crisis. That crisis has been produced by four years of public policy uncertainty. There is no doubt that our energy future will be dominated by renewable and energy storage technologies—there is no doubt about that; it is only a question of when they become the dominant drivers, or underpinners, of our energy policy. But the lengthy transition between now and then will require a transitional fuel, and that is most obviously gas. I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has posed more public policy uncertainty by talking about clean coal. As the member for Hunter, no-one would be more welcoming of a clean coal resurgence than me, but the technology is not there and the energy companies simply are not interested in the investment. But in this country we have an abundance of gas and we need to get that gas to market. We had the whit to ship liquefied natural gas from the Indian Ocean or the Timor Sea, but we do not seem to have the whit to ship it to the eastern seaboard. If someone can tell me we can do it even more competitively—for example with gas pipelines—I would be happy to have that conversation, but LNG as a source provides us with many more options than just domestic gas.
Government needs to provide the policy guidance necessary to bring gas to the eastern state markets, and there could be no better place to build an LNG receiver terminal than in Newcastle. It makes sense. Gas coming to Newcastle can fire new gas-fired generators built in the buffer zones of our current coal-fired generators, each of which is coming to the end of its commercial life. There are four generators in the region, between them producing 10,000 megawatt hours—one will be gone within five years; none of them will exist within 20 years. We have the land, we have the skilled workforce and we have the transmission lines—it makes perfect sense. Gas into Newcastle could also be used to deliver affordable and reliable energy to our manufacturing sector. It is simple: get gas to the eastern seaboard through Newcastle, pipe the gas to where the current generators are, utilise the land, utilise the existing transmission lines and utilise the existing workforce which obviously exists. Of course Newcastle is well placed geographically to then pipe that same gas onto the manufacturing sectors not only in the Hunter region but in and around Sydney and beyond.
This all makes sense, but to get there we do need government policy guidance. The Labor Party had a plan in place for this transition—a legislated plan which would now have been providing certainty to the sector; a plan which included, yes, first, the carbon tax but a tax that within three years would have transitioned to a floating mechanism—a mechanism which, according to Ross Garnaut, would now have carbon trading at $7 a tonne or thereabouts. Instead, Tony Abbott repealed all of that legislation and unravelled that framework, and, very sadly, nothing has been put in its place.
When members of parliament start taking calls from their manufacturers or their abattoirs and the like because they are running out of gas or because they cannot afford the gas it no longer stacks up. They need to ask themselves why, and the answer is that we have had policy uncertainty in this space for far too long. I know it is difficult in the current political environment, but I mean this sincerely: we need some bipartisanship on a national energy policy. We need to get that gas to the eastern seaboard. We need to get that gas to the eastern markets. We need to build baseload generators—they are not going to be clean coal, sadly, from my perspective; as I said, the energy companies are not interested. Gas is the transition fuel. We need gas-fired power generators. It makes perfect sense to put them where the existing coal-fired generators are—we have time because those generators still have some life left in them. The workforce is there and the transmission lines are there. It makes perfect sense. I appeal to the Prime Minister and all those on the other side to bring some bipartisanship to this issue. We are heading for a cliff. We are going to have manufacturers close down, including meat processors, which are close to the heart of, certainly, many in this room. Thousands of jobs in regional Australia will be lost. I am not exaggerating. This is real. It is happening right now, as I speak.
Unless we get some investment certainty in our energy sector that will be the outcome and we will all be the losers. It is time for us all to bind together, start talking in a cooperative fashion and start talking about getting serious about gas as a transitional fuel. Of course, the states will have a role to play. The reality is that there is a lot of coal seam gas out there that could be safely exploited without any threat to agricultural land or indeed the water tables on which agriculture relies. Yes, there will be those say it is not justified, that it will be too great a risk, but there are many out there that can work without any threat to Australian agriculture. Even if we could exploit all the eastern seaboard coal seam gas it would never be enough to meet the demand that is coming. We need big loads of gas, and it is going to have to come from faraway places, either by gas pipeline or by LNG means. If we do not start talking about it soon we are going to be in a world of pain, so I make a final appeal to all those on the other side to have us working as a team on this—Team Australia, if you want to use that term. We have an energy crisis coming and we need to address it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): It being approximately 7.30, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting.
Federat i on Chamber adjourned at 19:28 .