The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): Today, I present the eighth report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with 23 petitions and four ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. Of the 23 petitions within this report, all but one has been lodged through the e-petitions system. I will continue to update the House on the work of the Petitions Committee, and the use of the e-petitions system in supporting the facilitation of this engagement.
PETITIONS
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:02): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner: Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. This petition of the Concerned Citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; "On 4 December 2015, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) adopted Opinion No. 54/2015, in which it considered that Mr. Julian Assange was arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that opinion, the Working Group recognized that Mr. Assange is entitled to his freedom of movement and to compensation".
We therefore ask the House to: Do all within the Houses' power to end Julian Assange's Five and a half years of Arbitrary Detention by the United Kingdom and Sweden.
from 464 citizens
Internet
The internet is a free and open place, where information is traded back and forth. It allows the free flow of ideas to shape our education. The open internet is one of the purest forms of democracy, where ideas can be spoken freely, without censorship. By blocking The Pirate Bay, and similar sites, a precedent will be created where anyone can request for a site to be blocked for a small fee. This will create a situation where wealthy corporations and people can choose to censor anything that they wish and for whatever reason.
We therefore request that you reverse the decision on blocking these websites. The internet is and always will be a place of openness and democracy, and it should stay that way.
from 6 citizens
Syria
The last time a genocide to the proportions of the one occurring in the state of Syria occurred, Australia, the US, the UK and many more world powers rushed to Germany and fought to stop it. For our integrity, honor and for the ability to say we stand up for what is right we must act now as global citizens and step in to save those who are innocent, those who have done no wrong who are currently being slaughtered in the streets of Syria.
We request that the federal government takes renewed steps to intervene in the Syrian conflict. We request that we stand up for the innocent people that are being killed. We request that you as a government and we as a people take every step we can to ensure the founding values of Australia - those of morality, honor, mateship and a fair go - are stood by and propagated. We request that we stop this genocide in any way that we can - be that direct military action, treaties and agreements with our global friends and allies, strong and powerful action within the UN or any other power that we as a global country posses. This is not a time to sit back and watch innocent people die. This is a time to act and we request that you do this now.
from 4 citizens
National Anthem
The Australian national anthem is a pile of garbage, and, given light of our immigration policy, is a collection of lies. see: the second verse, 'boundless plains to share'. Do you, as parliamentarians, really want to spread lies and misinformation to the people? The Australian people would never, ever, ever expect their elected representatives to lie and operate under false pretences, would they? Surely not.
We, as the greatest and best people on the planet Earth, deserve to have the greatest and best national anthem in the world. La Marseillaise is taken by the French, and 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' is taken by the youth of the 1990s as theirs. Therefore, we should change it to the 2003 song 'Hey Ya' by Outkast, which has been venerated for centuries as one of the great party anthems
from 4 citizens
Centrelink
Seems to be a double standard as Centrelink is billing some welfare recipients for supposedly fraud yet our polititions can charge false claims for travel and associated costs.
Will the House firstly acknowledge that this is happening. Secondly will the House pass legislation that when this is proven the debt can be deducted from the salarys' of the guilty persons.
from 13 citizens
Schoolkids Bonus
The destruction of the schoolkids bonus is a real concern! While trying to get 3 children ready for school this year my family has had to go without incidentals such as meat and vegetables. I am a working mother and with what i get we are in a predicament of devastating financial hardship. We cannot afford things such as food to feed my kids. I myself have not eaten in 2 days already with weeks left to face.
Please bring back some form of school support! We are living in a society where things dont come cheap. You take off of the families who cant afford to live week to week as it is and you give to those who dont need it as bad. What is the government coming to if it cannot support its own citizens but can afford to help foreigners come into our country and set them up for life. We are not asking much. Just a little for our own.
from 10 citizens
Parliamentary Expenses
That the Government change the guidelines relating to parliamentary expenses and set rules to bring them into line with those that govern expenses in the private sector and the ATO. That politicians clearly state what an expense is for and the benefit to the taxpayer of incurring it. That the Government delete family members travel at taxpayer expense. That the Government define clearly what is a work expense. That the Government state clearly that attending private functions, such as football games, polo matches, new years eve parties, cricket matches etc. where there is no benefit to the taxpayer are excluded from being able to be claimed as an expense. That the Government clearly state under what circumstances politicians can use charter flights at taxpayer expense. That the Government clearly state that politicians must arrange their diaries so that timing conflicts do not precipitate the use of charter flights. That the Government change the entitlement system to stop all taxpayer payments to all retired and past politicians including Prime Ministers. That the Government mandate that all retiring politicians cannot take up employment with any entity that is the recipient of a government contract or government subsidy while that politician was in office for a period of five years from the date the politician left office. The people of Australia want to trust their politicians but cannot under the current expenses guidelines.
We therefore request that the House amend the current legislation to include this petitions requests.
from 46 citizens
Privacy
Every week there are dozens of emails that appear in our inboxes from companies that we have never heard of. It is an intrusion into the lives of the people of Australia, and we should have the right to pass on our personal information to whomever we deem fit, not to whomever the company that may have our information deems fit
We request that it be written into law that companies not be allowed sell contact information of persons who have ever appeared on their mailing lists.
from 2 citizens
Immigration
Due to the continuing new presidency of the United States of America, and in particular their recent Executive Order stranding peoples of certain countries outside the borders of the USA and away from their intended residence and immediate families, through the cancellation of their visas, green slips or other instruments granting passage into or through the USA
We therefore ask the House to provide immediate and unreserved aid, support and repatriation, either to their resident country or to Australia, for those who have been dispossessed by racial and religious discrimination, with special recent regard to the dispossessed of America.
from 3 citizens
Townsville Field Training Area and Shoalwater Bay Field Training Area: Expansion
Condemns and opposes the Department of Defence's plans to compulsorily acquire farm land for the expansion of the Townsville Field Training Area and Shoalwater Bay Field Training Area. The proposed land size tagged for acquisition is equivalent to 3.5 times the size of Canberra. Draws the attention of the House of Representatives to the destructive social and economic impact this proposal will have on families and businesses in nearby regional Queensland communities; namely Charters Towers, Townsville, Rockhampton and Marlborough. This will have a devastating impact on the already declining economies of these regional communities. Furthermore, on a national scale, there is potential for a negative impact on food security and price rises as a result of decreased agricultural production. Emphasises the devastating impact the proposed forced land acquisition plan is having on families - with the news delivered just days before Christmas that land would be forcefully acquired for the training of Singaporean Defence Troops with no prior consultation.
Calls on the Federal Government to recognise and acknowledge the importance of agriculture as one of the major pillars of our economy and give it the priority it deserves in land use planning and food production; Calls on the Federal Government to reject the Department of Defence's compulsory acquisition strategy and to explore any and all alternatives to forcing farmers off their land to ensure Australian farming families can continue to produce quality food locally for all Australian families.
from 8 citizens
Values
Angela Merkel promised co-operation with the United States under President Trump on the condition that "values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views" were upheld.
The Australian Government should publicly adopt the same stance.
from 2 citizens
Voting Age
Requesting that the House lowers the voting age to 16 years of age to allow the youth have a say in our future by voting in all elections and referendums that will effect the future of Australians.
We therefore ask the House to lower the voting age to 16 to allow the youth have their say in their future.
from 21 citizens
Irlen Syndrome
We certain citizens of Australia request that the Federal Government recognise that Irlen Syndrome is a perceptual processing disorder that affects at least 15% of the general population, impacting on all aspects of everyday life. It is the result of the brain's inability to process the full spectrum of visible light (wavelengths of light) and is NOT an optical problem. In any academic situation, the combination of white paper, whiteboards, Smartboards and fluorescent lighting results in children who have trouble reading or learning for no apparent reason and who are often misdiagnosed as having dyslexia; daily migraines or headaches; anxiety; mental fatigue and an inability to concentrate on academic tasks. It causes many students to withdraw from the education process because they cannot deal with the distortions and discomfort of working on white paper. Due to their poor reading skills, they generally have low employment prospects. Wearing Irlen Spectral Filters (as non-optometric glasses) filters out the offending wavelengths of light making it easier to read, and stopping the migraines and headaches. Many parents have difficulty funding the provision of the Irlen Filters so their children continue to struggle unnecessarily at school, continue to suffer migraines, fatigue and anxiety and eventually withdraw from the education process. Irlen affects workplace productivity as well, due to an inability to cope with the visual stress from fluorescent lighting provided in a normal workplace environment.
We therefore ask the Government to provide Medicare rebates for consultations and Irlen Spectral Filters.
from 636 citizens
President of the United States of America
Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the Australia only in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen of Australia and her representative the Governor General. Donald Trump has sponsored hate speech, supported the persecution of minorities, has been a self confessed serial abuser of women, has encouraged terrorism and is the subject of numerous court cases in his home country for dishonest business practices. Donald Trump's well documented misogyny and vulgarity disqualifies him from being received by the official representative of Her Majesty the Queen of Australia. Therefore during the term of his presidency Donald Trump should not be invited to Australia for an official State Visit, and should subsequently be banned from entry as an undesirable alien and liable to upset the peace.
Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the Australia only in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should never be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen of Australia and her Representative the Governor General. He should subsequently be banned from entry into Australia
from 12 citizens
House of Representatives: Proceedings
Draws the attention of the House of Represenatives to the following - That Sen. Sahand "Sam" Dastyari is of Iranian origin and may be affected by the bizarre policies of the U.S.A. President Donald Trump related to certain countries that are "Muslim majority" That the petitioners vehemently reject this profiling. We request that the Parliament reject holistically this U.S.A. policy and that anything else other than full rejection is tantamount to an endorsement of what a former respected Prime Minister John Howard would have called sedition against elected serving Parliamentarians.
We therefore ask the House of Representatives - That proceeding the acknowledgement of country (always will be Aboriginal land) and prayers - the House of Representatives with the allowance of the Speaker moves immediately to this petition during the time allocated on a Monday for presentation of petitions to move the following motion - "That the House of Representatives reject any targeting of person/s in the manner of President Donald Trump including Senator. Sahand "Sam" Dastyari - a person of Iranian origin noting we are explicitly against the new U.S.A. discriminating policy." Further the Leader of the House shall suspend standing orders proceeding such motion to give a moments silence to the victims including babies in the U.S.A. who are already victims of Trump's policy.
from 5 citizens
Klinefelters syndrome
My son was diagnosed the day after his 10th birthday, with XXY (Klinefelters syndrome) as well as a duplication of chromosome15sq 26.3. There was nowhere to take him who could tell us what his next steps were, and what this meant for his future. What I didn't realise was how many people were effected by XXY alone within Australia and how many local citizens and their families were struggling because of the minimal knowledge in our Country with XXY and many other chromosomal variations. Klinefelters affects 1 in 500 boys and my son will go into high school with 2000 children. This statistic has changed over the years as the diagnosis rate increases. There should be at least 2 - 4 other children with the same condition yet there is no knowledge or discussion of this condition, with one of the many symptoms of this syndrome being learning difficulties and speech difficulties. Having a chromosome variation awareness day recognised by our Australian government will be the first milestone to open our eyes to a complex syndrome that has never been properly diagnosed, addressed or managed. Dedicating a day will raise awareness and provide support for people living with this diagnosis. This will enable support groups, Not for Profits, and Health care professionals to promote, and raise awareness. Our Countries visible participation in this event will have a profound impact on our community.
We are requesting that you issue a formal awareness declaring a day for people living with chromosome variations.
from 144 citizens
Climate Change
According to the Australian Climate Council, "2016 was the hottest year on record globally for the third year in a row. Climate change was the dominant factor in driving the record-breaking heat worldwide"; and Indigenous people throughout the world have shown great wisdom in caring for the environment. The Indigenous people of Australia and our neighbouring Pacific Islands are at the front line in confronting the damage caused by climate change. They have repeatedly called on the Australian Government and the Australian community to address climate change more seriously.
Your petitioners ask that the House: Urgently work towards a JUST transition from coal and coal gas to renewable energy; Ensure that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions becomes a priority across all policy areas of the government; and Engage Indigenous knowledge in formulating sustainable development policies.
from 73 citizens
Kingsford Legal Centre: Funding
We draw the House's attention to the significant impact the proposed $92,000 funding cut will have on Kingsford Legal Centre's provision of frontline legal advice to some of our community's most vulnerable members. The cut will require a reduction of over 250 advices, 30 cases and 12 community legal education projects per year.
We call on the federal government to reverse proposed funding cuts to community legal centres, and in particular to reverse the $92,000 cut to Kingsford Legal Centre. The cuts will result in reductions to frontline services. We further call on the federal government to implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and increase funding sector wide to help cope with increasing demand for legal services.
from 711 citizens
Sexual crimes
There are too many severe sexual cases where the alleged offenders are on bail, released after serving minimum sentence and recommit sexual crimes again.
Mandatory life sentences for conviction of rape charges involving a minor, with bail automatically denied
from 9 citizens
Taxation
Zero taxation is a right and privilege of citizens of the Caymans Islands and other places and a member who purchases or accesses that right to zero taxation through facilities often called Caymans offshore accounts may be in breach of S44 of the constitution. S44 of the constitution says in part (i) a member is disqualified if ... "or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power."
I request the House determine if Members of Parliament can own or purchase zero taxation offshore accounts from Cayman's Islands,often called Caymans offshore accounts with regards to S44 of the Constitution.
from 10 citizens
Gender pay gap
That the gender pay gap in Australia; whereby men receive an average of 17.7% more salary, and 23.1% more total remuneration than women for equivalent work; is unacceptable. That salary transparency will reduce the gender pay gap and that the government should make reporting on pay data mandatory. The Gender Equality Act 2012 needs to extend mandatory reporting of pay data.
Reduce the gender pay gap in Australia by making changes to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012. That this change be that "a relevant employer under the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 be extended to include all employers with 10 or more employees in Australia".
from 16 citizens
Climate Change
The Australian Government should be sued or held responsible for their inaction on climate change and global warming and actions should be taken to ensure that this changes. Our Government insists that Coal is still the way of the future. It is not. Green energy, renewable and Solar energy is what this country needs to focus on. Climate change and Global warming exist and our Government intend to ignore this fact. The Australian Labor party seem to be the only party committed to changing our country to renewable energy, the Liberal party and our Prime Minister Turnbull are stating that coal is the future of Australia. They only say this because it is benefitting them financially. They do not care about the future of Australia and its younger generation, they only care about the money they are making now by supporting the coal mining industry. It is time for our government to focus on the future of this great country, which is what they are supposed to be doing, rather than making millions off a scheme that is destroying this Earth.
I ask for the House of Representatives to act on this and ensure that our government answer for their crimes to this country and earth and force the government to act, take climate change seriously and steer our country towards renewable energy and abolish the need and use for coal. Our government should be held accountable and justice served to them accordingly.
from 11 citizens
Homelessness
Housing Affordability
It has been reported that the Federal Government is looking to cut funding to homeless services or affordable housing as well as crisis accommodation, outreach programs and support for women and children experiencing domestic and family violence
Requesting fact checked, client evidence based demonstrable benefits to any proposed cuts to homeless services or affordable housing. Requesting fact checked, client evidence based demonstrable benefits to any cuts any crisis accommodation, outreach programs and support for women and children experiencing domestic and family violence
from 15 citizens
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Violence against Women
Dear Mr Vasta
I refer to your letter of 10 October 2016 to the Minister for Justice, the Hon Michael Keenan MP, regarding the petition on strategies to stop violence against women. As the Minister for Women, the petition falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
I am pleased to advise that the Commonwealth is progressing a number of initiatives (including in partnership with the States and Territories) that address the issues raised in the petition.
Respectful relationships education builds the skills of young Australians to reject aggressive behaviour, sexualisation, discrimination and gender stereotyping, and develop equal and respectful relationships. At the December 2015 Council of Australian Governments meeting, First Ministers agreed to progress initiatives to ensure that respectful relationships education was provided from foundation to year 12. Furthermore, under the 2015 Women's Safety Package, $5 million was allocated to expanding the Safer Schools website to include resources for teachers, parents, and students on respectful relationships.
Last November, the Australian Government released research that revealed people learn to condone or excuse disrespectful behaviour towards women from a young age. The research informed the development of a $30 million national campaign (funded by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments) which my colleague, the Minister for Social Services, the Hon Christian Porter MP, and I launched on 20 April 2016.
The national campaign is a primary prevention initiative aimed at helping to generate long-term cultural change and break the cycle of violence. It targets the 'influencers' of young people aged between 10-17 years old - people like parents, friends, teachers, and sports coaches - to help them understand how their actions and attitudes can perpetuate or prevent violence against women. The campaign encourages adults to reflect on their attitudes about women, and to have conversations about respectful relationships and gender equality with young people. These conversations help set the standard for what is and what is not acceptable, right from the start.
Information about the national campaign, including campaign materials, can be found at: www.respect.gov.au/
State and Territory Governments have responsibility for delivering a range of services such as justice, policing and legal assistance for victims and perpetrators, including the provision of refuges. In relation to refuges, the Commonwealth Government is providing $115 million each year through the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. On 9 December 2016, the Commonwealth confirmed that it would extend this funding until June 2018 to support front-line services while future arrangements to reduce the rise in homelessness are explored. The agreement prioritises funding to frontline homelessness services focusing on women and children experiencing domestic and family violence and homeless young people. Under the Women's Safety Package announced in 2015,
$16 million was also committed to help keep women safe in their homes or a home of their choice.
In addition to supporting women to live safely in their homes, the Government is providing funding for support and training frontline services to ensure women are able to access the support they need, including:
$14 million to expand the DV-alert training program to police, social workers, emergency department staff and community workers to better support women, and work with the College of General Practitioners to develop and deliver specialised training to GPs across the country.
$15 million to establish specialised domestic violence units to provide access to coordinated legal, social work and cultural liaison services for women in a single location, and allow legal services to work with local hospitals, including for women from CALD communities and women living in regional and remote areas.
$5 million for local case workers to coordinate support for women, including housing, safety and budgeting services.
On 28 October 2016, the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments launched the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022. The Third Action Plan is informed by the growing body of research and data, recommendations from relevant inquiries and consultation processes, including the Final Report of the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children. It centres on six national priorities: prevention and early intervention; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their children; greater support and choice; sexual violence; responding to children living with violence; and keeping perpetrators accountable across all systems. The Third Action Plan also includes a priority to co-design and develop primary prevention activities with, and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men. This priority includes actions such as supporting perpetrators of violence to engage in behaviour change programs to address the drivers of their violence.
I trust that this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash
Parkes Electorate: Cancer services
Dear Mr Vasta
I refer to your letter of 1 December 2016 to the then Minister for Health and Aged Care and Minister for Sport, regarding the petition (PN0007) from the citizens of the Federal electorate of Parkes about equitable access to services to diagnose and treat cancer. I regret the delay in responding.
I am sorry to learn of the difficulties people in the Parkes electorate are experiencing in accessing services for the diagnoses and treatment of cancer in Western New South Wales. As you know, regional and rural health is one of this Government's key priorities. Australia is a large country, and everyone who lives here is a stakeholder in our health system and this Government believes in the principle of universal health care. Every Australian deserves access to the same quality of care no matter who they are or where they live.
I am pleased to advise that on 27 May 2016 the Deputy Prime Minister, the
Hon Barnaby Joyce MP, the Minister for Regional Development, Senator the Hon Fiona Nash, and the Member for Parkes, Mr Mark Coulton MP, announced that a re-elected Liberal-National Government would provide $25 million towards a new Integrated Cancer Centre which would provide specialist medical and radiation oncology services as well as a PET scanning service from the Dubbo Base Hospital.
On 24 August 2016, Minister Nash and Mr Coulton wrote to Western NSW Local Health District confirming the commitment. Subsequently the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (Infrastructure) contacted the Western NSW Local Health District advising next steps for delivery of the project. In December 2016, Infrastructure received the necessary information from the Western NSW Local Health District in order for
Infrastructure to progress the project.
I understand that this new Integrated Cancer Centre will be constructed as part of the broader redevelopment of the Dubbo Base Hospital already planned by the New South Wales Government. I look forward to the opening of the Integrated Cancer Centre and the opportunities that this will provide Australians living in the area to access services closer to home.
Thank you for writing on this matter. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health and Aged Care and Minister for Sport, Mr Hunt
Commercial Fishing
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 16 December 2016 about the petition (PN0022) regarding the rights of commercial fishers. As the minister with portfolio responsibility for Commonwealth fisheries, I am writing to provide a response to the petition.
The Australian Government appreciates the increasing public interest in how our fisheries resources and marine systems are managed. The Commonwealth has a strong record of responsible fisheries management, which has ensured that fish stocks managed solely under its jurisdiction are not subject to overfishing.
As fisheries are a shared resource, the Australian Government recognises the importance of ensuring that an appropriate balance is struck between the competing interests of all users, including commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishers as well as the broader community. To achieve this, Commonwealth fisheries management is based on the best available science and consideration of community values. The Australian Government will continue to work with state and territory jurisdictions to ensure that the interests of Australian fishers and other users are managed fairly.
Thank you again for your letter. I trust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Joyce MP
Cocoa Industry: Child labour
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 16 December 2016 regarding the petition on child labour in the cocoa industry. The Government considers the existing voluntary arrangements and the measures outlined below best respond to this concern.
The Government is committed to preventing and combating human trafficking and slavery. We work in partnership with countries in our region, multilateral institutions and civil society to prevent human trafficking, bring the perpetrators to justice, and protect and support victims.
The Government has announced it will work collaboratively with business and civil society throughout 2017 to explore the feasibility of a non-regulatory, voluntary code of conduct for high risk industries; further consider the feasibility of a model for large businesses in Australia to publicly report on their actions to address supply chain exploitation; and create a suite of awareness-raising materials for business. These initiatives will encourage and equip Australian businesses to take action against possible exploitation in their supply chains and ensure Australia continues to support efforts to combat human trafficking and slavery in our region.
Australia also co-chairs with Indonesia the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, which is the key regional cooperation forum for addressing these crimes. The Bali Process will be expanded in 2017 to include the private sector, bringing together ministers and senior business leaders from around the world to consider ways to prevent and combat trafficking.
The Government is undertaking a national consultation on the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), a set of guidelines for States and companies to prevent, address and remedy human rights abuses committed in business operations.
This consultation will take into account a broad range of business and human rights issues for Australia, including supply chain and child exploitation issues of the type outlined in your letter.
Initial consultations with business and with civil society took place in May and June 2016. In October 2016, DFAT led a session on this issue at the Australian Dialogue on Business and Human Rights. I have agreed that DFAT establish a multi-stakeholder advisory group to provide advice on the implementation of the UNGPs, and expect the composition of the group to be announced early in 2017.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Bishop
PETITIONS
Statements
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): Petitioning the House is longstanding and important democratic right, and one which encourages involvement with the parliament by members of the public. With the introduction of the e-petitions system, this process has only been made easier and more accessible. It has only been a few short weeks since I tabled my last report, and the amount of petitions received electronically since that time reflects the ease in which the public can now engage in the petitioning process.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (10:02): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There are some issues in this parliament which are complex and there are some which are dead simple. This parliament has never had a more straightforward choice than it does today. This parliament can vote with Labor to protect the conditions of up to 700,000 of our fellow Australians and to protect the take-home pay of up to 700,000 of our working Australians. That is what it can do—it can vote with Labor, or it can vote to cut wages in retail, hospitality, pharmacy and fast food. This is the choice. There is no wiggle room, there is no fence to sit on, there is no hole to go and hide in and there is no playing in the traffic on this issue.
This is not the time for another lecture from a party who knows nothing about industrial relations—'It's not our fault and leave it to someone else.' This place, and this issue, is not the jurisdiction of bystanders or spectators. It is where decisions get made. There is a very clear decision to be made here. You can either vote to save the penalty rates—the Sunday pay rates—of young people, of women, of people in the regions and of workers who depend upon these penalty rates. You can vote to do that, or you can vote to endorse cutting them.
In the past fortnight, my Labor team has been out speaking with hardworking Australians right around the country; people who rely upon these extra rates of pay to make ends meet. There are people in Australia, it may surprise the government to learn, who do not think that being cut in wages up to $77 on a Sunday is a gift. There are people who do not believe that these cuts are minor, that they are moderate or that they are marginal. This sort of money is the weekly tank of petrol. This sort of money is the pair of new school shoes for your primary school-aged children. It is what helps you pay the water bill. It is the cost of a trip to the doctor. It is paying the rent on time, or falling behind.
Make no mistake, they are the Prime Minister's cuts, the coalition's cuts, to penalty rates. And they hate us calling it their cuts, but when you vote not to reverse the cuts, you own the cuts. What they do not understand is how Australians live from pay cheque to pay cheque. This is not good news for people who budget on a weekly basis or on a fortnightly basis. People who earn their penalty rates do so on the basis that it is how they make their ends meet. People who earn penalty rates are not greedy people. They are not holding the economy back. What they are is hardworking Australians who deserve a reward, not a punishment.
This is a punishment to hardworking Australians yet we have a Prime Minister who thinks that it is okay to punish the low paid and the vulnerable, but then reward millionaires. It is an absolute travesty. It is a shame. Courtesy of this government, on 1 July, a millionaire will get a $17,000 tax cut, but a retail worker will get a $77 a week pay cut. A retail worker on up to $40,000 will lose 10 per cent of their income. When someone on $1 million is getting $17,000 in tax cuts, yet this government votes for pay cuts, this is a government not fit to be a government.
At the heart of the Liberal-Nationals economic plan is a tax cut for corporations of $50 billion, a $7.4 billion bonus for the big banks and, at the same time, a pay cut for working families. It is all because of a flawed, sterile, failed view that somehow the only worthwhile economic plan for this country is that if you look after the very rich and big business the benefits of that will somehow miraculously trickle down to the less well off. That theory is wrong and that is why these pay cuts are most definitely wrong.
No doubt, as we debate this issue during the coming week, the Prime Minister will do what he always does. He will talk about Labor, he will talk about the unions and he will talk about me. Indeed, in the last four days of question time the Liberals mentioned Labor or myself 225 times. This is not a strategy; this is an obsession. We do not know on this side whether to be flattered or frightened. On the issue of penalty rate cuts, the Prime Minister is either dishonest or ignorant, as he is on many other policy issues. He likes to take every available opportunity to hurl personal abuse and bag Labor and the unions and myself. But what I say to the Prime Minister is: use whatever distraction that you think is necessary, use every possible dishonest distraction you have in your book, put up whatever story you want. But, on this this issue, when it comes to defending working families in this country and the living standards of working families, we will not be deterred or put off. He knows in his heart of hearts that the Australian people expect the Prime Minister of the nation to defend the people of the nation. We know that it is our obligation and we will not be deterred, put off or distracted. We will fight every day for this legislation. The government can vote for it now or they can watch us vote it up when we form the next government, because this is a very important issue.
At a time when corporate profits are at record highs and wages growth are at record lows, this is exactly the wrong time to give multinationals a tax cut and workers a pay cut. The legislation that we introduce today will prevent any pay cuts in the future. It is a simple piece of legislation and it is a straightforward decision. But what has the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, been saying? He says, 'Don't blame me; I'm just the Prime Minister.' He walks around with his stunned surprise that in planet Australia people depend upon penalty rates. We know every day this Prime Minister is fighting a rearguard action. He knows what he should do on penalty rates, but he does not believe in standing up to the right wing of his party. Nor does he believe in the role of penalty rates in this country. Why is it that the only thing he will fight for is his job? Why is it that this Prime Minister is so on survival mode that whenever it comes to fighting for himself he shows passion, interest, commitment, Turnbullian brilliance. But when it comes to fighting for millions of Australians who depend upon penalty rates, he is MIA. He could not care; do not bother him; and, by the way, he actually supports these cuts. What is the point of being Prime Minister if you are not willing to do the job that you are paid to do?
The other day the Prime Minister said that opposing the cut to penalty rates was overturning 100 years of Labor history. Well, it was very lucky that he did not actually join the Labor Party when he was weighing it up! Let me say this to him: standing up for working people and their industrial conditions is Labor history. It is why we come to this parliament; it is what motivates every one of my team. We believe that if we can do nothing else but make sure that working people get a fair go all round at work then that is a day well spent and that is a cause this party will never deter from no matter what the government says or whatever lies the government tells. We respect the Fair Work Commission—we absolutely do. But they got this decision wrong. It is a very wrong decision. We are going to reverse the decision, as this party should do. And we ask the government to support us.
As for the dishonest propaganda of those opposite who seek to feed misinformation to journalists, when unions negotiate on behalf of workers it is about making them better off overall. Taking the example of Sunday penalty rates in isolation completely ignores the benefit of the higher base rates of pay and better conditions. They love to talk about McDonald's. At McDonald's, full-time senior weekly wages are up to $70 better than the award—$70 better every week—because of union negotiations. That EBA also delivers minimum hourly shifts, family violence leave, compassionate leave and study leave. But the cut to penalty rates is just a pay cut. There is no compensating benefit in terms of lifting the overall rate—no compensation, no compromise. The Prime Minister either does not understand industrial relations or does not care about industrial relations. The point about it is: this decision, this pay cut, is just a pay cut.
When the Liberal-National MPs talk tough in their electorate we will hold them to account in their electorate for this vote. We will make the government wear this decision to cut penalty rates each and every day up to the election. We will fight this issue of penalty rates because it is the right thing to do. We will never support a cut to the living standards of ordinary Australians.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Yes, I second the bill and I reserve my right to speak.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Weekend Pay and Penalty Rates) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bandt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:13): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Something is wrong with the laws in this country if some of our lowest paid and youngest workers can have their pay cut. The Greens have been saying for some time there is a problem with the legislation in this country if it allows young and low-paid workers to have their pay cut. That is why I am delighted to give effect to an election commitment of the Greens and rise to introduce the Australian Greens' bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Weekend Pay and Penalty Rates) Bill 2017, to protect the weekend, public holidays and nightshifts.
This bill, if passed by the parliament in this sitting fortnight, will prevent the unfair Far Work Commission decision from coming into effect. It will maintain the independence of the Fair Work Commission but put stronger rules in place so that when the Fair Work Commission makes its decision it is not allowed to take young people and vulnerable workers backwards. Many people, especially young workers, rely on penalty rates to earn a living wage. Before the last election the Greens were the only party that committed to legislating to protect weekend rates of pay. We did so because we know that weekend rates are an integral part of people's rights at work, with hundreds of thousands of Australians depending on weekend rates to make ends meet. Young people in particular depend on weekend rates to support themselves while they study. Young people are already facing unaffordable housing, insecure work, low levels of student assistance, and immense debt, so cutting weekend rates of pay, which are often the only thing that allow them to pay the rent and keep going while they study or do the other things that they need to do to get by, would place them under immense pressure. It is time that people have certainty about the future of their weekend rates. It is time to ensure that the law protects people's weekend rates, and that is what the Greens are doing today.
No doubt some people will ask why there are two bills on penalty rates being introduced into the House today. To understand that, we need to look at the situation before the last election. Before the last election it was clear that the employers' push to cut weekend rates had some chance of bearing fruit, because of the holes in the Fair Work Act that would have allowed the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates. We made it crystal clear at the time that there was a hole, that there was a prospect that young people and shiftworkers and people relying on other penalty rates could go backwards, and so we not only strongly opposed cuts to any penalty rates but also made it clear that we would introduce legislation that would prevent any Fair Work Commission decision to cut penalty rates from coming into effect, or to reverse it if we were not there in time. This was a call that unions and many young workers were also making on others.
Despite this, the Liberal and Labor parties went to the election on a unity ticket, saying that they would accept the decision of Fair Work Commission and not legislate, saying that to do so would be unsustainable, as it would open the door, apparently, for conservatives to cut workers' rights. But as we said at the time, that is silly logic, because on that logic we should not have legislation specifying four weeks of annual leave in case the Liberals at some stage later cut it down to three. It was wrong logic at the time, and the excuse for inaction never made sense. It got worse, because when we brought this position to the election, the Leader of the Opposition criticised us and said, 'You don't need to do that, because, yes, there is a theoretical prospect that the commission may cut penalty rates, but what if alien life makes contact with earth?' Maybe it is time to brush off some old copies of The War of the Worlds or E.T., because it has happened, as we predicted.
We went to the election calling out the tough talk from others for what it was: tough talk without action. Today is a reminder about why you need third voices in parliament, why you need third parties and Independents to hold the others to account, because often it will be the case that it is only those who do not have vested interests with big corporations that are prepared to stand up for young workers and vulnerable workers, and that is what we did. I am genuinely pleased that our efforts before the election, combined with very strong campaigning from community and from young workers, have seen the Labor Party change their tune. Because of the Greens in parliament, because of the strong campaign by the union movement and because of the strong public outcry, there has been a very welcome change of heart from the Labor Party, and the Greens are now no longer the only ones wanting to legislate to protect penalty rates.
Both the bill that I am introducing today and the bill that the Labor Party circulated as an exposure draft have merit and address different aspects of the Fair Work Commission decision in different ways. We have concern that there might be some holes in the opposition's bill, which we have raised with them. They have concerns about what they say is the scope of our bill. What would make most sense is if, as this parliament has done on issues like marriage equality, we were able to come together to find an agreed path through parliament. If we were able to come together to find an agreed path through parliament, there is every chance that before this sitting fortnight is out at least one house of this parliament could vote to protect people's take home pay and stop the decision of the Fair Work Commission from coming into effect. If we can get a bill through one of the houses of parliament over the next couple of weeks, that will place enormous pressure on this Prime Minister to act, because this Prime Minister knows that this parliament can stop the unfair decision of the Fair Work Commission from coming into effect.
The government might like to say the most important thing to do in this next sitting fortnight is to amend legislation so that it is easier to prosecute hate speech in this country. The government might say the most important thing to do over the next sitting fortnight is to pass a bill to give the big four banks $7 billion worth of tax cuts, because that is what the government is proposing—a $50 billion tax cut handout to the big corporations in this country, including the big banks, who, frankly, do not need it. The Greens say the most important thing that this parliament can do over the next couple of weeks is to stand up for young people's pay, to stand up for those workers who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet, and so this bill lays down a challenge not only for the government but also for those members of the Senate who sit as conservative crossbenchers. Now the test is on senators Hinch, Xenophon and Hanson. 'Whose side are you on?' is the test for them. They talk a big game in their home states about standing up for the little person, and then when they come to Canberra, they vote with the Liberals every time and they attack people's rights at work. We saw that they did that on previous industrial relations legislation. The question is now: will this parliament, and in particular will the Senate, over the next fortnight, stand up to protect people's rights at work? We know that the Greens will. We now know that Labor has had a change of heart and that they will, and we know some Independents and some crossbenchers will. But what will Senator Xenophon do? What will Senator Hinch do? What will Senator Hanson and her party do?
They have a chance now to stop this unfair decision from coming into effect. That is why we need to debate this bill and do so over the next sitting fortnight, because after that it may be too late.
Over the coming weeks the Fair Work Commission will consider what orders, if any, to put in place to give effect to its decision. So the clock is running and it is now a test as to whether the members of this parliament want to take this window of opportunity to pass this bill. I would like to see them pass the Greens' bill, because I think it is the simplest and easiest way to protect people's penalty rates. This bill will stop the commission from cutting penalty rates below where they were at the start of this year—a very simple solution.
I am sure Labor would like to see people support Labor's bill. No matter which bill you get behind, one of these two or a combined bill, support a bill: stand up and take a stand. This is the opportunity for everyone in this parliament to be counted. This is the chance to stand up for low paid and young workers. This parliament far too often acts in the interests of a very wealthy and very powerful few and ignores those who have trouble standing up for themselves. When we have the situation that young people who are working at night, or working on weekends or working on public holidays now might go backwards, it is incumbent upon us to stand up not in the interests of corporations but in the public interest. I commend the bill to the house.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:23): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wilkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:24): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia is a wonderful place, and we certainly have a very high opinion of ourselves—sometimes it is too high of an opinion. Sometimes we think that we are a very civilised, ethical, law-abiding place, but the fact is that we have an animal welfare crisis in this country. Some people might think I am over-egging that a little bit, but I am not. I am not just talking about the substantive matter that this bill concerns itself with in the live animal export trade. I will get to the substantive matter shortly.
First, to speak to my point that we have an animal welfare crisis, let us look at some of the facts. Take egg production. We go to the supermarket now and see lots of free-range eggs there on display, but the fact is that about half of the eggs sold in supermarkets currently are not free-range. In fact, the majority of eggs in this country are actually used in the industrial production of food, and the vast majority of them are not produced by free-range hens. So the fact is that the vast majority of egg production in this country is from hens that are stuck in a little wire cage for their miserable lives—and we say that we are an ethical country that treats animals well! Even for the hens that are in so-called free-range conditions the standard that is being applied to them is appalling. The industry thinks it is free-range to have 10,000 hens per hectare. That is one chook per square metre. That is not free-range by any reasonable measure. The standard should be no more than 1,500 hens per hectare. That would be much more to do with the ethical production of eggs.
That is egg production, but what about pork production? Yes, sow stalls are being phased out throughout the country, but it is interesting that currently they are banned in only two jurisdictions: Tasmania and the ACT. In the rest of the country and they are still legal. Thankfully, the industry is phasing them out, but the industry refuses to phase out farrowing crates, which themselves are terribly cruel. They are not much bigger than the sow. There is no straw for them to make a little home for themselves so they can live even a half-decent life.
What about greyhound racing? Much has been said in recent times about greyhound racing in this country, and for one brief moment we thought the now former premier of New South Wales would show a bit of backbone and respond to all of the evidence about systemic cruelty in the greyhound racing industry and finally respond to the public concern about the cruelty—the fact that thousands of healthy greyhounds, more than 10,000, are put down each year because they are not wanted or do not run fast enough. Then there is the live baiting, which is supposedly outlawed but is widely conducted. Everyone in the industry knows that, even the people who are not directly involved in live baiting. They send their young dogs off to a breaker and those people, the owners of the dogs, know full well what that breaker is getting up to—the fact that he or she is probably using live baiting. We had that brief moment of hope when the now former premier of New South Wales said he would do something about it, and the first time a bit of pressure was applied, the first time someone put a blowtorch to his feet, he turned to mush, he turned to jelly and rolled over and the opportunity was lost.
What about thoroughbred racing—the fact that the whip is still allowed throughout this country? How on earth can whipping a horse be ethical behaviour. It is cruel. And this nonsense: 'If we don't whip our horse we won't win the race.' But if no-one is whipping it is an even playing field, so to speak, and it would be fair. If we do nothing else with thoroughbred racing, let's get rid of the whip.
And what about steeplechase racing? It is still allowed in Victoria and South Australia even though every year race after race we see horse after horse taking terrible tumbles, ending up in agony and having to be put down. How on earth, in a country like Australia, in 2017, can we allow steeplechase racing?
What about the puppy farms, the kitten farms? Something like 15 per cent of puppies and kittens are sold in pet shops, and virtually all of them come from puppy farms and kitten farms. We know what goes on in those places—the cruelty. This is ridiculous. This is Australia in 2017, and we have the cruelty with the industrial production of eggs and pork, the cruelty in the greyhound racing industry, the cruelty in the thoroughbred racing industry, the cruelty in the steeplechase industry and the cruelty in the pet shops from the puppy farms.
That brings me to the substantive matter: the cruelty in the live animal export trade. How on earth can any civilised, decent country allow this barbaric behaviour to continue? In fact, not only is it continuing but this government and this agriculture minister rub their hands with glee and celebrate every expansion of the industry, now sending shiploads of beef cattle to China. And the government says: 'Hurrah! This is fantastic!' The Indonesians make it easier to send heavier cattle and to have a more reliable supply chain of beef cattle to Indonesia, and the government rubs its hands with glee: 'Hurrah! We're expanding the industry'—even though the live animal export industry is cruel, is not in our self-interest and does not have popular support.
How many more exposes do we need? How many times do we need to turn on the television or look at the front page of the newspaper and see the cruelty, before a government—any government, any major party—finally does something about it? Yes, it was great that for a short time trade with Indonesia was suspended by the Gillard Labor government, but it was only for three months, and then it was resumed. These days the Labor and Liberal parties and the Nationals are pretty much in lock step with their support for the live animal export trade. How many times do we have to see live sheep buried alive? How many times do we have to see exposes of the cruelty in the slaughterhouses of Indonesia? How many more times do we have to see photos and footage of the conditions on the live export ships? And what about those sheep coming out of an Australian winter and going into a Middle Eastern summer and ending up in the markets—illegal markets—during the festival of sacrifice?
And what does the government say? 'Hurrah! We're expanding the industry!' They do not care about animal welfare. If they cared about animal welfare they would back this bill. They would back this bill which would phase out and eventually ban the live animal export industry; it would be gone within three years. That has to be reasonable. I know that a lot of people will criticise me and say that it should be banned today, immediately. But I will say: 'Okay, industry: I'll cut you a bit of slack; you've got three years to prepare for the change. The condition is, though, that in the interim you have to have much better animal welfare safeguards, during those three years, and you have three years to prepare for the industry to be wound up.' And do you know what? It will be a better red meat industry in this country, because all of a sudden we will not be relying on a cheap product going overseas with no value added—an industry constantly under political pressure because of the systemic cruelty that is exposed week after week as to what goes on in that industry. And let us not forget: the live animal export industry benefits very few people—a relatively small number of big cattle producers in northern Australia and a very small number of exporters—and the cost is the thousands of abattoir workers who have lost their jobs in this country.
The fact is that we should be processing those animals in Australia. And it is cock and bull—a complete lie—for the industry to say that there is no alternative. Of course there are alternatives. We export an enormous amount of chilled and frozen red meat to the Middle East and into Malaysia and Indonesia. It is complete baloney to say that these countries, because of their religious practices, can accept only live animals and slaughter them themselves. We have a number of abattoirs in this country that are already licensed to slaughter animals consistent with religious practices. These Islamic countries are already buying enormous amounts of value-added red meat that has been processed in this country. It has employed Australian workers and it has been done relatively ethically to world's best standards in this country, as opposed to throwing all these thousands of sheep, thousands of cattle onto these huge boats in the most appalling conditions and letting them sail off into the sunset, and who cares about the conditions when they get to the feedlots and the conditions in the slaughterhouses?
It is way beyond time. I think I have now sought to move half a dozen or so bills in this place, and almost none of them have had the agreement of the government or the alternative government to be debated. Let's at least get behind this one. Let's at least debate it, and let's vote on it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Bandt: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned; resumption of debate made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
National Land Transport Amendment (Best Practice Rail Investment) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by MsMcGowan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:36): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present a bill for an act to amend the National Land Transport Act 2014. This bill is to be known as the National Land Transport Amendment (Best Practice Rail Investment) Bill 2017. In opening my comments I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of participants in the Australian Alpine Valleys Community Leadership Program and other constituents from my electorate and to say how proud I am to be here as I represent our interests to improve public transport right across Australia but particularly north-east Victoria.
The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the social and community benefit considerations that are assessed when the minister approves an investment project under the National Land Transport Act 2014. The bill adds matters that the minister must consider when improving a project as an investment project and mandates that the minister address each matter listed in the bill. The bill also requires a summary of evidence supporting the approval of the investment project to be published in the department website and to be tabled in parliament.
Under the amendments, when a project involves the construction of a new railway or the upgrade of an existing railway, the amendments require the minister to consider: the extent to which the project prioritises passenger rail services, demonstrates best practice in rail infrastructure investment and maximises the community benefits from the Commonwealth investment; and, secondly, the extent to which the project can lift the level of service and the standard of existing rail infrastructure to maximise the benefit to communities along the railway—for example, by facilitating better passenger services. The minister would also be required to consider the extent to which the project maximises rural and regional economic and social-economic benefits and the extent to which the project meets or will meet the current and future needs of the users of the infrastructure.
Outside of the capital cities, infrastructure investment is traditionally measured in economic terms and not in social good. Projects in the city largely focus on easing urban congestion, which is clearly a social benefit. This bill aims to address this gap. In metropolitan Australia, rail infrastructure supports dedicated networks of freight and passenger movement. In rural and regional Australia, this infrastructure is a shared resource, and decisions regarding Commonwealth investment must consider it as such. In considering infrastructure investment in rural and regional Australia, consideration must be given to both the economic—which is clearly important—and the social value, which is equally important. And the most direct way to maximise the social benefit of rail investment is to prioritise passenger rail.
An example of the gap in policy is the Inland Rail project. It proposes a freight line from Melbourne to Brisbane through hundreds of rural communities, and this freight line is welcome and will make a huge difference to our community. However, there is no mention of rural or regional passenger services being upgraded in any of the project material. We share the same line. It will be freight and passenger service. We will upgrade the freight service, but there is no mention of the impact on passengers. The only consideration of passengers is of a positive benefit gained by removing freight from Sydney and reducing congestion around Sydney. This amendment really aims to say, 'Of course economic is important, but so too is social and we must name it.'
If I could briefly talk about the Inland Rail: this Inland Rail freight route should not be considered in isolation from passenger transport. The two consistently overlap and share much common infrastructure, and, with improvements to the national freight network, have the potential to increase passenger traffic safely and reduce congestion.
There is little dedicated road or freight infrastructure in Australia. In most instances, road and rail freight operators share infrastructure with passenger services. This situation largely exists because of cost. It is generally more cost effective for transport infrastructure to be used together—and, in regional Australia, even more so. It is important that we share infrastructure.
The Australian government and the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the ARTC, have clearly outlined the economic benefits of the Inland Rail project: it will save time; it will reduce supply chain costs; it will improve access; it will create jobs. But, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, I call out to you that economic and social benefits are not mutually exclusive. We need both.
And why do we need both? We need both because in north-east Victoria there is a huge problem with our train line. It is not just Melbourne to Wodonga, which is the particular bit I am concerned about; it is the whole freight route—it is the whole transport system. It is absolutely working below capacity. The north-east line suffers really poor service—one of the worst in Victoria. Services are late, as they were this morning. There are currently 23 speed restrictions along the track. The system is not working.
The issue has been brought to a head with the Australian Rail Track Corporation, and they have scheduled track works. The fascinating thing was that this work happened last weekend, which those of you from Victoria know was our long weekend. So we had the cancellation of train services. We had buses put in their place. It was a debacle. And why was it a debacle? Because we do not put passenger services up there on an equal footing with freight. And that is what this amendment seeks to do.
Interestingly, the line between Melbourne and Wodonga, for my colleagues' interest, is not classified as a premium line. So if you were to travel on the line between Melbourne and Bendigo or Melbourne and Ballarat, you would get a premium service. The service on that line is not premium. And you would ask: 'Why?' Well, the reason is that five years ago the Victorian government signed a 50-year—50-year!—contract with the Australian Rail Track Corporation and put into place standards of service at a lesser rate for Albury-Wodonga than those from Bendigo to Ballarat. Why would you do that? I ask the people in the gallery to think: who was in government five years ago in Victoria?
So we have got huge problems that need to be addressed. What I am trying to do today is to say: it has not been enough to rely on the goodwill of the V/Line, it has not been enough to rely on the goodwill of the Australian Rail Track Corporation and it has not been enough to rely on the goodwill of the government, because we in north-east Victoria have experienced the utterly devastating result of that. So this private member's bill says that, when we are building railway or upgrading railway, we need to make sure that passenger service gets treated in the same way as do our freight lines. So we have got a bit of movement to do.
What does the government need to do? The federal government needs to change its terms of reference with the Australian Rail Track Corporation. They need to bring the standards to an equal level. And, as the federal government upgrades this inland freight line between Brisbane and Melbourne, which will use our rail track, there is an opportunity to actually upgrade it to get us premium service, and I call on the minister to do that.
But the problem is not just with the Commonwealth government. The Victorian government has a really important role to play here. They need to commit to upgrading their rolling stock. They need to commit to actually doing a much better job on regional planning. In Connecting regional Victoria: Victoria's regional development plan, a commitment was made, in budget 2016-17, to put $2 million into planning so that we can plan for the long term on our line. The Victorian government also allocated $15 million to fix up some of the trains. I am calling on the Victorian government, in this budget—the 2017-18 budget—to seriously fund what needs to be done. That means fix up the line, give us better rolling stock, renegotiate the contracts so that we have a premium service and really seriously look at the passenger needs from Albury-Wodonga, Wangaratta and Benalla to Melbourne, at how we can get a shuttle service happening and at how we can develop Seymour as a hub.
The Australian government has an opportunity to provide leadership. It has an opportunity to make a real commitment to regional Australia. It has an opportunity to act on a real-time problem that is not political, that is in their power to act on, that would make such a difference to the lives of students, families and businesses, and that would unleash the capital that we know we have in northeast Victoria.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Bandt: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Workplace Relations
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (10:46): I 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.
I am proud to rise in this place to move this motion and stand up for what is fair, just and decent. I am here to stand against another of this government's relentless attacks on the most vulnerable and lowly-paid workers; quite frankly, enough is enough. I am here to stand up for the people that I represent—regional and rural workers, who rely heavily on penalty rates. The economy in the Herbert electorate relies heavily on university students. Many university students obtain work in the retail, hospitality and accommodation sectors. These students are not saving money to buy a home; they are spending every dollar earned in the local economy. They are buying smashed avo on toast from the local cafe! Why would this government want to give one of the biggest pay cuts since the Great Depression to these students and other workers? In a city where unemployment is high, our economy cannot afford to have over 13,000 people receive a pay cut. This government is so out of touch with the basic and fundamental needs of regional, rural and remote Queensland communities.
It was of no surprise to me when Senator 'Gold Card' Ian Macdonald stood to support cuts to penalty rates but was very happy to support his own interests. Just what does Senator 'Gold Card' Macdonald stand up for? Is he standing up for the over 13,000 workers in the Herbert electorate affected by the cuts to penalty rates? No. Is he standing up for the 16,000 workers affected in Leichhardt? No. Is he standing up for the 13,000 workers affected in Dawson? No. Is he standing up for the politicians who are getting their gold card travel cut? Yes. Is he standing up for politicians who have to survive on a paltry $200,000-a-year salary? Yes. The reality is that Senator 'Gold Card' Macdonald is not standing up for over 42,000 people in North Queensland—and let us not forget the member for Leichardt, Warren Entsch, who is also worried about the loss of his gold card travel instead of being worried about the 16,000 workers in his electorate.
The simple fact is, this government has absolutely no idea what it means for low-income workers and families to lose between $50 and $77 a week from their pay packet. Let me be very clear: working longer hours for the same take-home pay is a pay cut. This decision is nothing short of unjust and unfair. On Friday, 17 March, I was proud to rally with the Queensland Council of Unions Townsville branch members to start our campaign to fight cuts to penalty rates. We were outside Senator Macdonald's office at 8 am, but there was no sign of him. The sign on his office door explains why: his office opens Monday to Friday, 8.30 am to 5 pm. The reality is that Senator Macdonald does not understand the importance of penalty rates for low-income workers; he is handsomely compensated for his extended hours of work, and we all know that he will fight to protect his conditions.
I was elected to represent the people of Herbert and I am here in this place to be the strong voice in Canberra for the one-in-six workers in my electorate who will be affected by these savage cuts. I am here to stand up for people like Jaydon. He is a fourth-year law student, currently studying at James Cook University. He is engaged. He and his fiancee live in a small one-bedroom unit and pay $250 per week in rent. Jaydon works six days a week to survive. He works as a barista on weekends specifically to boost his income. He is a casual on the Fast Food Industry Award. The Fair Work decision means that Jaydon could lose $50 a week. I am asking someone in the Turnbull government to please explain to Jaydon why he deserves a pay cut. I am calling on the Turnbull government to support the 13,000 workers in Townsville and the more than 42,000 workers across North Queensland and to support workers like Jaydon by standing with Labor and supporting our private member's bill. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded? I thought you would sit down, Mr Kelly!
Mrs Elliot: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:52): You are certainly correct, Deputy Speaker Mitchell. This is not a motion that I would second. I do not think there has been a motion brought into this House that is a greater distortion of the truth and a greater piece of hypocrisy than I have ever heard in my time in this place. Let us go through the truth and the facts that the member for Herbert conveniently disregards.
This so-called cut to penalty rates only affects five of 122 awards. They are starting with a scare campaign. Here we go. This is nothing but another deceptive scare campaign by Labor members trying to trick the public and scare them, just like their 'Mediscare' campaign. The member for Herbert, of all people, should be apologising in this House to the people of her electorate for tricking them at the last election. Still, they wear that deception as a badge of honour. We are going to talk about penalty rates because the truth exposes what a pack of frauds the Labor Party are on this issue. It is only five out of 122 awards.
What they fail to mention is that the changes made by the Fair Work Commission do not affect workers at Coles, Woolworths, BigW, Target, Kmart, David Jones, McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut, Red Rooster and Hungry Jacks. And do you know why? It is because their penalty rates have already been ripped off by them by the shop assistants' union. I have before me the EBA for Red Rooster. Guess what it says, Deputy Speaker?
Paragraph 28.3 relates to weekend penalty rates. It says, 'All work performed on a Saturday or on a Sunday during ordinary hours shall be subject to the following penalty rates:' There is an entry for Queensland. Member for Herbert, can you tell me what penalty rates Red Rooster workers in Queensland get? Can you tell me what they would get? Is it 50 per cent? Is it 25 per cent? I will tell you, member for Herbert. It is zero. It is right here. It says, 'No loading applies.' They have already been ripped off by the unions in their penalty rates. And what for? What did they get? I will tell you. I have the KFC national enterprise agreement here. This is what penalty rates have been sold off for. Paragraph 40.2 says:
… the employer undertakes to positively promote union membership by recommending that all employees join the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association.
Paragraph 40.3 says:
All employees, including new employees at the point of recruitment, shall be given an application form to join the Union together with a statement of the employer's policy.
What young person in their first job is going to say, 'No, I am not going to sign that form.' Where does it get them?
Paragraph 41.4 is the killer. It says:
The employer—
that is KFC—
undertakes … to deduct Union membership dues as levied by the Union in accordance with its rules from the pay of employees … Such monies collected will be forwarded to the appropriate … Union …
So what has happened here? Not only have they ripped penalty rates off the workers so that these workers are getting no penalty rates under the union deal, the union get a lifeline into their pay packet to rob their pay. And where does that money ultimately end up? It ends up financing the election campaigns of members of the Labor Party. What a disgrace! What a sham! What a pack of hypocrites you lot are! You come in here and say you are standing up for workers, and all you have done is stand there and rip them off with their penalty rates. What are Labor trying to protect? It is the competitive disadvantage to small business.
Let us take a few examples. A family owned chicken shop pay a worker $29.16 on a Sunday, but KFC, who have been touched up by the unions, pay union members only $21.19. So under the current arrangements that you lot are defending, it is illegal for that family owned business to offer that KFC worker a higher rate of pay. If they say, 'We want to pay you $26 an hour,' that is illegal. Your deals are stopping workers getting more pay. What a disgrace is it to make out that this is somehow compulsory. What a sham!
Many employers who are already paying that higher rate of pay have said that they are happy to continue to do so. One of them is a company called Lush. (Time expired)
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:57): I rise to proudly support the member for Herbert's motion concerning penalty rates. I also note the impact of the Liberal-National government's continued attacks on the penalty rates and the conditions of workers in regional and rural Australia, as evidenced in the previous speech by the member for Hughes.
The recent Fair Work Commission's decision to cut penalty rates will hurt retail and hospitality workers and their families in regional areas. Figures reveal that my electorate of Richmond will be hit hard by the decision and hit hard by the Turnbull government's refusal to act and stop the Fair Work Commission's cut to penalty rates. In fact, in the past few days, the Prime Minister has shamefully stated that he supports the Fair Work Commission's cuts to penalty rates. He therefore supports cutting the wages of hardworking Australians.
In my electorate, more than 13,000 people—or one in five employees—work in the retail, food and accommodation industries, and they will be affected by these cuts. These workers stand to lose up to $77 per week. Retail is the second-biggest industry in my electorate, employing more than 7,000 workers. Food and hospitality is the third-largest industry, employing more than 6,000 workers. Make no mistake: these cuts will be devastating for my region and devastating for local families.
These cuts to penalty rates are also bad for our local economy, as these workers will now have less money to spend in our local businesses—our local shops and restaurants. These shops rely on our local economy and local workers. The workers are also the customers, so small businesses will be impacted as well. The fact is that the Prime Minister and his Liberal and National Party members have campaigned for a very long period of time to cut penalty rates, and that campaign continues from speakers across the chamber.
I would like to note and commend those businesses both in my electorate and throughout the country who have stated they will not be cutting their penalty rates following the decision. We should make mention of them and commend them.
Labor are determined to stop this damage being inflicted on our local workers and our economy. Indeed, I commend the opposition leader for putting forward his private member's bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, in which we aim to stop these cuts to penalty rates. Labor's bill would stop the devastating effect of penalty rate cuts from taking effect. We know those Liberal and National MPs will shamefully continue to block the introduction of laws to protect penalty rates—that is what they do. They do it because they are seriously out of touch. They will vote against protecting workers from a $77 a week pay cut, but they will vote for a $50 billion tax cut for big business and multinationals. That is truly shameful. Labor has always had a strong commitment to protecting the rights and conditions of workers—specifically, their right to adequate and fair remuneration. Because, the fact is, it is penalty rates that pay the bills. It is penalty rates that put food on the table, and that is what those on the other side do not understand: it is a vital part of a worker's take-home pay.
Penalty rates are particularly important as they ensure that people are appropriately compensated for working long hours that are inconvenient and often unsociable, and for having to spend time away from their families. Families in regional Australia rely on penalty rates. These cuts will disproportionately impact on them, because wages are lower in regional areas, so it is a double hit to them. Our community is also deeply concerned about the impact on our regional economies. I note the McKell Institute estimates that disposable income in regional areas will fall by between $174 million and $748 million if penalty rates are cut in hospitality and retail awards. That is a massive hit to local economies. Cutting penalty rates in regional and rural areas has a much broader reach than those specifically listed in the original decision. Who is going to be next? Will it be our hardworking nurses, our healthcare workers, our police, our firefighters, our ambulance officers, our tourism employees, our cleaners? Who is next? They could be severely impacted if this is extended to those industries as well.
As a former police officer, and as someone who worked shift work for many years, I understand and empathise with the challenges and difficulties faced by people who work irregular hours and I understand why penalty rates are so vitally important. But since the election of this government, we have seen an enormous increase in the level of campaigning to reduce penalty rates. The government are out there every day advocating strongly for it, and, in the country, we have the National Party strongly advocating for it. As I have said many times, National Party choices hurt. Well, this one will really hurt the country if you are going to vote against these workers and you are going to vote to cut penalty rates. But people will remember it, and we will be campaigning on it every day up until the next election, because Labor will stand by regional and rural Australia. We will stand by the workers who rely on penalty rates and will fight every day in this place and throughout the country to protect workers, wages and conditions.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (11:02): I rise to speak against this motion on penalty rates, and, in so doing, I initially reflect on a couple of very important points. I reflect on the fact that, following the Fair Work Commission's independent decision, small businesses across Australia—shops, pharmacies, takeaways, hotels—have noted and publicly stated the fact that they have found it traditionally far too expensive, in most cases, to open on Sundays. They say that this decision will allow them to keep their doors open on Sundays, to employ more people, to provide more jobs and, in particular, to provide a level playing field such that they can compete with big business. I also reflect that it was Mr Shorten himself who set the rules for this particular inquiry—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Brian Mitchell ): The member for Groom has to refer to members by their proper titles.
Dr McVEIGH: The opposition leader himself set the rules for this inquiry and appointed the umpire. He repeatedly said he would respect that umpire's decision. Just like the Reserve Bank, in making decisions about interest rates, has removed any suggestion of political interference, so it is the case with the Fair Work Commission. It has spent many years studying the evidence—many submissions, many witnesses—and it has considered the views of unions and employer organisations alike, along with many experts as well. It was set up by the Gillard government in 2009. It was tasked in 2013 by Labor to review all awards every four years. And it was the opposition leader himself, as the workplace relations minister in 2013, who amended the Fair Work Act to specifically require the commission to consider penalty rates as part of that process. He said he would abide by the independent umpire—the umpire that he set up. Further, when he was leader of the AWU, the opposition leader in fact—as the member for Hughes has quite rightly reflected—removed penalty rates for some other of Australia's lowest paid workers.
In our electorate of Groom, this is fundamentally about small businesses. In my community they are the engine of our economy. They are family businesses—I am talking about the Cooreys, the Betroses, the Hannas, the Fitzgibbons—who provide retail and hospitality and other services to our community, and they have done so for decades and decades, generation after generation.
Upon hearing of the Fair Work Commission's decision, the chamber of commerce president in Toowoomba, in my electorate of Groom, Joy Mingay, provided some fairly significant feedback. She said a large shopping centre manager said to her it would have no impact on the employees of their tenants in that centre, because they had already had their penalty rates traded away by the union movement. She said others provided advice that it would help them restart businesses—popular family businesses that can now look at opening on Sundays and employing new employees, particularly students from the University of Southern Queensland who are so dependent on casual employment. There is the pub and hospitality operator who said there would be no difference to them whatsoever, and that they will continue to pay their staff the same rates, because the minimum rate set by the Fair Work Commission would not mean much difference to their business at all. Others recognise as well that it is a minimum and, for them, it will not change. Changed shopping patterns of modern day Australians—as members of the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce and other local organisations have noted—mean that it is a seven-day-a-week cycle.
I have noted Senator Claire Moore, based in Brisbane, making commentary about small business in Toowoomba. She is a fly-in fly-out senator to our city—sure, she has Toowoomba roots, such as I do—but I am concerned that she must not be touching base with small business in my city, because that is what they are saying. They are saying they recognise this as an independent decision. They recognise that they are the engine room of our economy, and the decision of the Fair Work Commission—as originally established by the Labor Party—now means that they can provide more jobs and more opportunities, and provide the benefits to our community that the Fair Work Commission itself recognised would flow.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (11:07): I am glad to support the private member's motion brought forward by the member for Herbert, and I thank her for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue of penalty rates. What is at stake here is a longstanding feature of the Australian social compact. People are rightly compensated for working long and unsociable hours; they are rightly compensated because they give up precious time—the time that most Australians devote to spending with family and friends, enjoying the cultural and recreational activities that are concentrated on weekends and holidays. But they are also rightly compensated because working overtime and on weekends or public holidays can sometimes fall to those at the bottom end of the employment hierarchy. Penalty rates compensate people for working in circumstances most would like to avoid. They provide an incentive that makes such work less unattractive to a range of employees, which in turn means those hours are not forced on people just because they are a new employee, or young, or part-time, or otherwise less empowered within a particular workplace.
While I do not live in regional or rural Australia—I lived in the south-west of Western Australia as a kid, and I have family in the Great Southern—I have travelled extensively within my state, and I continue to do so. I was in Nannup on Monday last week—a lovely town and a great example of the way that rural economies have changed and diversified over the last 30 years. It continues to display traditional strengths in farming and plantation timber, but it has also developed a growing profile in the form of tourism and creative industries. The truth is that weekends and holidays are times of strong trade in regional centres, just as they are in places like Fremantle. In many centres that represent a tourism or food and beverage and retail hub, it is not the weekend that is the problem. It is the week—Monday to Friday—that can actually present the biggest challenge. So we have to ask ourselves: what will cutting penalty rates really achieve? There is little evidence cutting penalty rates will deliver significantly different amenity in the form of extended hours of business operation. There is very little evidence it will result in greater employment overall. The only certainty to be found in reducing penalty rates is that you will cut wages. There will be people who straight away lose take-home pay. That will hit individuals and households. It will hit local communities.
Do not forget that in rural and regional Australia the people who work in retail and hospitality centres like Albany, Bunbury, Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Port Hedland and Broome are often living in smaller towns within a substantial radius—sometimes 100 kilometres or more. What those workers earn is then spent in their local communities. If you cut their income; you cut what goes through the till in local shops and businesses. All the evidence is the vast majority of those who will be affected by a change to penalty rates are on low wages already. In addition to being lower income earners, they are more likely to be young; they are more likely to be part-time employees and students; they are more likely to be single-parents and women. So why on earth would we be looking to make life harder for those people?
The proposed change to penalty rates has been floated by the Productivity Commission—but it is the government that bears ultimate responsibility. The government will choose—by action or omission—whether this change is made. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if they let these cuts come into being they will own those cuts. In the end, we have to come back to the commonsense question: what exactly is the problem that cutting penalty rates seeks to address? There is no pressing national crisis when it comes to getting something to drink or eat on the weekend, and it is ridiculous to suggest that the first step in creating jobs in Australia should be to cut the wages of those already in work.
The truth is that cutting wages is the last thing we need when we face the related issues of rising inequality, flat productivity, and faltering growth. We do not need to reduce demand in the economy by cutting the spending capacity of those who have least, and who spend what they earn. We do need to address stagnant wage growth, particularly for low- and middle-income earners. We do need to have a frank conversation about rising profits and executive salaries that have grown out of all proportion to average earnings, and which have soared irrespective of poor performance.
This government has a knack for getting tangled up in simple issues. There really is no cause for changing penalty rates. There is no cause for standing in the way of marriage equality. There is no cause for waging a bizarre war on renewable energy. It is derelict to slash funding to community legal centres, and to leave the National Affordable Housing Agreement in such a state of uncertainty. Australia needs a government focused on the big issues and the member for Herbert has got it spot on: this coalition government should swallow its pride and support Labor's fair work amendment to protect the take-home pay of low-income Australian workers, and it should get serious about tackling the issue of jobs in Australia as a whole.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (11:12): Hundreds of thousands of Australian workers rely on penalty rates. Penalty rates are there to recognise workers for making the sacrifice of working when others are not. They are also often the only thing helping workers make ends meet. Cutting penalty rates for our lowest paid workers will have a devastating impact on families on the Central Coast in the electorate of Dobell. A cut to penalty rates is a cut to take home pay that workers cannot afford and do not deserve. The Prime Minister made an unprecedented call over the weekend, saying that he supported cutting penalty rates. It is unconscionable that a Prime Minister would commit to making it even harder for families to make a living.
The government is sitting on its hands and will support cuts to the wages of some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, with up to 770,000 Australians losing up to $77 per week. As our leader said this morning, that is a tank of petrol or a pair of shoes for a student going back to school. That is putting food on the table. That is a uni student being able to make ends meet and get to class. It means people having to work longer hours for less pay, women being disproportionately affected and regional communities like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales having less money to spend in our already difficult economies. Cuts to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates will not end with the hospitality, retail, fast food and pharmacy awards. This is just the beginning, and it is being ideologically driven by this government. Nurses, firefighters, aged-care workers and others will be the next to face these drastic cuts, and others can also expect no support from the Prime Minister or the government for having their wages slashed as well.
I was at Lake Haven Shopping Centre in Gorokan, and a young single mum I spoke to works nights and weekends in retail to make ends meet. Penalty rates mean she earns just enough to pay the bills for her and her young daughter. Working nights and weekends, with the help of her family, means that she does not have to find extra money for child care, which would see her moving backwards financially.
My nana Elaine worked in retail her entire life. She was a proud member of the shoppies and bravely stood with other workers to improve their conditions. It could have risked her job and that of her friend Lola in trying to make it safe to go to work and to come home. Through their efforts—the efforts of my nan and her brave friends—other workers were able to have basic conditions, to support their families and to have dignity in work.
I am very pleased that there are members of the SDA visiting this parliament today. I ask everybody to make the time to listen to them and to hear the first-hand experience of young women like Jasmine who are so affected by these cuts. I stand here today really on behalf of my nan Elaine and her friend Lola. They would be devastated to see the cuts to the basic conditions and the loss of fairness and dignity in work, which they, standing side by side with their colleagues, saw introduced and which now are at risk.
At Lake Haven shopping centre recently, when I had my mobile office, I met with locals about their concerns about losing penalty rates. We started at 3pm with a line up already waiting and we did not leave until every last person had signed that petition after 7pm. There was a great sense of community with people signing the petition to stand up for their own penalty rates and the penalty rates of their friends and family. They were concerned by the knowledge that other industries would be hit next.
On the Central Coast there are pockets of extreme disadvantage. The unemployment rate for young people sits at just under 17 per cent. We know that penalty rates are helping people get by. Whether it is students completing their TAFE training or university or whether it is young families starting out in life, we know these cuts will hurt them. They are cruel cuts which will hurt the most vulnerable in our community. As a health worker, I know that uncertainty at work can have drastic health impacts. As someone who has worked in mental health for most of my life, I know how severe the consequences of uncertainty at work can be to individuals and their families.
I congratulate the member for Herbert for standing and speaking on this motion and drawing it to the nation's attention. I proudly stand with her to protect the penalty rates of others.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Australia-US Relations
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (11:17): I 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.
Australia and the United States of America share much in common. We are two of the world's oldest continuous democracies. We share the same language, cultural heritage and trace many traditions back to the little island of the United Kingdom. But we are not of the old world; we are of the new world and, like our wines, we are bold in character. The migrant story is an important part of both of our national histories. We have overcome geography and built strong civic societies from very diverse populations.
Australia and the US have grown close over 230 years, yet our early interaction was incidental. In the 19th century, US ships sailed from Boston filled with ice through the tropics to Melbourne where the remaining ice was dispatched to hotels and dining rooms as a luxury—probably in the seat of Gellibrand. The American motor car arrived here in 1908, and in the same year President Theodore Roosevelt's Great White Fleet came alongside ports in Sydney, Melbourne and Albany. Australia for the first time witnessed America's dormant military power. Car assembly plants were set up by Ford in Geelong in the 1920s and General Motors Holden in Port Melbourne in the 1930s. This hinted at America's industrial capacity.
Sport drew us together. The first African-American, Jack Johnson of Texas USA, won the heavyweight boxing world championship here in Australia at Rushcutters Bay in 1908. World War I brought us closer still. We fought alongside US troops at the Battle of Hamel in 1918. Australia's Sir John Monash led both Australian and American soldiers to a great victory against the Germans there. Our leaders locked horns at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Prime Minister Billy Hughes demanded heavy reparations from Germany; President Woodrow Wilson did not agree. Hughes pushed back with:
I speak for 60,000 Australian war dead. Who do you speak for?
Wilson later spoke of him as a 'pestiferous varmint' in a way that only friends can.
It is no surprise, then, that President Trump sensed a brawler on the other end of the line when speaking with our Prime Minister last month. Our deep ties allow a frankness that we do not share with other nations, but our strong modern partnership—built on security, trade, investment—did not occur on its own. Events shape history, and the Second World War has done more than anything else to shape our relationship with the United States. It is a telling footnote of history that Canberra had no ambassador in Washington until 1940. The Battles of Coral Sea and Midway in 1942 laid the foundations for 75 years of cooperation between our two countries. The US Navy sent Japanese imperial ambitions to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, thus securing Australia's lines of trade and communication. We shifted our gaze from Britain to the US as our most important security partner, and that relationship was forged on the battlefields of the Pacific theatre and continues today. On a personal note, I am only able to give this speech because a US medic and surgeon saved my grandfather's life after he suffered a terrible gunshot wound aboard a Catalina conducting an air sea rescue mission on 31 March 1945.
ANZUS underpins our security cooperation, regional stability and our economic growth. It has done so for 65 years. We are a critical ally to the US in the Asia-Pacific region. Our military, intelligence and diplomatic support are vital to US engagement in the region. The US is Australia's largest foreign investor; US investment accounts for 23.6 per cent of total foreign investment stock in Australia. Mutual investment in both our economies has grown to nearly A$2 trillion. The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement is at the heart of our economic independence. The Fulbright Program grows our future leaders, with Australians able to study at great US universities.
But the Australia-United States relationship goes deeper than just security, economics and cultural exchange. We are both democracies. We believe that people should elect their own governments and that those governments should be accountable to the people. We believe in the separation and diffusion of power. We believe in limited government and protecting our people's economic, political and religious freedom. In short, we share common values and a common vision of a good life. This is why we are friends and this is why our friendship with United States will endure into the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Morton: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (11:22): I thank the member for Canning for bringing this important motion to the House. I want to start by stating something that I am sure that every Labor speaker will reaffirm—that Labor well and truly supports the alliance. In fact, we are proud of the alliance. I want to spend my time reflecting on the coalition's approach to this alliance, because I think that is where fruitful discussion can be had. My premise is that the coalition has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of this alliance and that that is reflected in some disastrous foreign policy decisions.
I am proud of the alliance because the alliance really started under Labor, with this quote from the greatest Australian Prime Minister ever, Prime Minister John Curtin, who stated in 1941:
Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.
No truer word could be spoken by Australia's greatest Prime Minister. This was in the context of him taking over from Prime Minister Menzies, a man who spent four months in the United Kingdom in the darkest days of World War II and who had repeatedly failed to stand up Winston Churchill—something no-one could ever accuse John Curtin of. In fact, John Curtin famously stood up to Churchill and insisted on the return of the 9th Division of the AIF from the Middle East to Australia—
Mr Watts: And the 7th.
Mr CONROY: And the 7th—thank you. He stood up for that, instead of Churchill insisting on it being sent to Burma, where it would have been captured along with a lot of other troops.
So Labor is proud of the alliance. But being a good friend, as Australia is to the United States, requires honesty and respectfully disagreeing when we believe that they are making poor decisions around foreign policy. That stands in stark contrast to the coalition, who have repeatedly followed the United States into poor policy decisions. The most noticeable was Vietnam, where 521 lives Australian lives were lost. We had a generation were scarred and betrayed. We had billions of dollars of wasted taxpayers' money, and all for what? A false notion that somehow being a good alliance member meant following United States into Vietnam on a lie. There have been extensive records kept about how South Vietnam did not request these troops. It required a lot of engineering from the Australian government, in conjunction with the US government, to basically compel the South Vietnamese government to request these troops. That is a great tragedy. The alliance did not require us to enter Vietnam, but Prime Minister Menzies and then Holt obviously disagreed.
The second instance of where the coalition government misunderstood the nature of our alliance and our strong friendship with United States was in the second Iraq war, where Prime Minister John Howard wasted over $2½ billion of taxpayers' money on a lie—a lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that somehow required Australian intervention alongside the United Kingdom and the United States.
This is not about Labor or Liberal, because the British Labor government was wrong as well. We are reaping what was sown in that conflict. We have troops now risking their lives in Syria and northern Iraq because of decisions made around the second Iraq war. Lives have been lost, we have seen more than $2½ billion dollars of taxpayers' money wasted, and we have millions of people currently in the middle of a war zone because of the destabilisation that occurred during that period.
I do not say these things lightly. I do not say them to score cheap political points. I say them to make the point that friendship, supporting an alliance, requires honesty. That will be tested in the next four years, I fear. Respectful disagreement is the subject and the inherent essence of friendship. I am urging the coalition government not to follow any more follies of any US government, to stand up where it is required, to support where it is justified and to be, above all, good and honest friends. I thank the member for Canning for bringing this motion to the House. I reaffirm my deep commitment and the Labor party's commitment to the alliance and I look forward to the continuing debate.
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (11:28): I rise to support this motion and the 65 years of the ANZUS Treaty between the United States of America and Australia, a friendship between our nations that is measured by far more than the 6½ decades that have passed. We are allies, partners and friends. We share fundamental values. We share a high level of trust built with decades of close cooperation. With ever-shifting relationships around the world, it is so important to respect our longest standing ones.
The alliance of our nations provide for our mutual defence and regional stability and, importantly, extends to trade, investment and economic growth for both nations. The US is Australia's largest source of foreign direct investment, at some 23 per cent. US is also our second-largest trading partner in terms of goods and services. At A$800 billion, US foreign investment in Australia is nearly double that of the number two investor, Japan, another of Australia's regional neighbours and friends.
As members on both sides stand in this place to speak to this motion today, the friendship between the United States and Australia has never been stronger. Following the inauguration of President Donald Trump, President Trump and Prime Minister Turnbull reaffirmed the US-Australia alliance and the commitment of our countries to have cooperation on a growing list of global challenges. Over the last three years alone, the President, Vice-President and half of the President's cabinet have visited Australia. More than 100 congressional delegations have travelled to meet with us. There have been more than 500 visits to Australia by senior US defence officials. Similarly, Australia's parliamentary leaders, departmental officials, and our serving men and women have visited the US to further our nation's engagement with our closest ally.
Ours is an alliance of true friends who share common values and whose interests overwhelmingly align. We share democracy and an independent judicial system, both nations fight with every breath to defend freedom of speech, and our citizens are free to make their own decisions without fear of imprisonment or bloodshed. We are innovative nations and we champion enterprise. Our nations are strong foundations for those that want to apply their own effort and achieve their every potential for their family, for their community, for their business and for our countries. This is why we are committed long-term partners.
Australia has fought beside the United States in every major war or conflict since World War I. In 2018, on 4 July, Australia and the US will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Hamel. This battle was the first time US forces were placed under the command of another nation. Australia's General Sir John Monash led the US 33rd Division in its first action in that war. The Allied victory owed much to Monash's detailed planning. The US-Australia cooperation quickly overran German positions and took 1,000 prisoners.
Australian and US defence forces remain deeply integrated. We work closely with the United States on counterterrorism in South East Asia. Our forces have strong links in the coalition as we fight against ISIS. Our special forces personnel have played key roles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our intelligence agencies work at the highest level of cooperation.
I speak in support of this motion and I also speak in tribute to my friend the member for Canning who moved it. His commitment to our country as a member of the Special Air Service Regiment is a sacrifice few Australians make to serving our country and our military. He knows very well, personally, the importance of our alliance with the United States, the strength of our shared fundamental values and the personal sacrifice it takes to build peace, prosperity and democracy in the face of radical and ideologically opposed enemies. He knows the deep trust and friendship of the alliance from serving alongside US defence personnel.
Prime Minister John Howard, at a reception on the occasion of the 50 years of the Australia-United States alliance held at the Sydney Opera House, recalled Sir Robert Menzies to illustrate the strength of the relationship that exists between Australia and the US. When Menzies—who was Prime Minister of Australia when the ANZUS treaty was signed—retired in 1966, he was asked at his final press conference to nominate his greatest accomplishment in government. Without hesitation, he said it was the treaty between the United States, Australia and New Zealand, signed in 1951: the ANZUS treaty. I share this commitment to our US ally, our partner and our friend.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (11:33): On 27 December 1942, one of our greatest leaders, Prime Minister John Curtin, surveyed Australia's precarious strategic position in the face of Japanese advances during the Second World War and told the Australian people:
Without any inhibitions…I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.
Australia's conservatives reacted to this statement with horror, with the then Leader of the Opposition, Billy Hughes, declaring that it would be 'suicidal and a false and dangerous policy' for Australia to orientate itself away from the United Kingdom. Despite this instinctive conservative fear of change, Curtin's famous declaration became the foundation for a successful defence of Australia in the Second World War and 65 years of security partnership between Australia and the United States in the form of the ANZUS alliance.
ANZUS has endured because it is founded on shared values, interests and respect at multiple levels between the Australian and the American people, demonstrated by the fact that Australia is the only country in the world with a positive net migration flow from the United States; between our businesses, Australia's second-largest two-way trading relationship is with the United States; and our defence forces have served side by side in conflicts across the globe. The United States has been a champion of the rules based international order that has emerged since the Second World War, and this has been overwhelmingly in Australia's interests.
However, this relationship between Australia and the United States is receiving renewed scrutiny in this country in the wake of the election of the Trump administration. Indisputably, the Trump administration articulates a very different vision of the role of the United States in international affairs than any before it. I fully expect that there will be robust disagreements between Australia and the United States in the coming years. I have already spoken in this chamber about my disagreement with the administration's so-called Muslim ban—a ban that, in my view, is not in the security interests of Australia.
However, the great strength of the ANZUS alliance, as a mutual self-defence treaty, is the freedom it gives the participants to independently determine their own interests and commitments within the alliance. This has allowed the alliance to evolve within dramatically changed regional strategic circumstances. We can disagree without trashing a decades-long relationship that is far bigger than any individual. Just as Curtin stood up to Churchill to demand the 7th Division be used in the defence of Australia in engagements like Milne Bay and Kokoda, rather than in the prosecution of imperial aims in a futile campaign in Burma, so too can Australia exercise independence within ANZUS. The ALP exercised independence of this kind when it refused to support the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003—a position that has been vindicated many times over in the decade that has followed. We will need similar independence of thought in coming decades.
Australia is currently experiencing the greatest change in our strategic environment since the arrival of the First Fleet. The era of benign US hegemony in our region is waning and the Indo-Pacific is moving rapidly towards a multi-polar security environment. In recent years, China's economic growth has been accompanied by even more rapid growth in its military and it is now the second-largest defence spender in the world by some margin. Other nations in our region have responded in kind and, as a result, Asia has collectively outspent Europe on defence each year since 2012.
Neither reflexive anti-Americanism nor sinophobia offer Australia a path forward in this increasingly challenged security context. Instead, we will need to do the heavy lifting of forging a sophisticated strategic policy that leverages our alliance with the United States while also deepening our capacity to advance our own interests within our region. I have said before that this should mean that we pursue an international strategy that seeks to build expertise in South-East Asia as an urgent priority and as the basis for our future engagement with China, the United States and the broader region. Unfortunately, we are not well prepared for this new world. Australia currently has the thirteenth-largest military spend in the world, and the fifth-largest in Asia. But we are a small fish in a big pond. We have a large landmass and even larger strategic interests to defend. An adequately resourced Australian Defence Force is the price tag that we need to pay for an independent Australian foreign policy—the national asset that underwrites our ability to say 'no' to powerful allies and neighbours when we need to. It will only become more important in future years.
Similarly, Australia's diplomatic corps is small by international standards. It is the smallest in the G20. We are rapidly losing the South-East Asian capability that we established in the Public Service and academia in the 1990s. Asian language study, the foundation of understanding and engaging with our neighbours at the level of sophistication required to pursue complex strategic aims, is in freefall. To take just one example, there are currently fewer Australian high school students studying Bahasa Indonesia today than there were under the Whitlam government. There are just 588 in Victoria, 186 in New South Wales, 47 in Queensland and 48 in South Australia. More universities in Germany teach Bahasa Indonesia than in Australia.
Yet, in response to appeals that Australia focuses on building more security with Asia, we hear the reactionary cries from the conservatives that echo the change expressed by Billy Hughes in 1942.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:38): I acknowledge the service and commitment of my friend, the member for Canning, to his country through his service in the SAS. And I acknowledge him for bringing this motion today.
Australia's historic and continuing links with the United States are well known to many of us. It was the United States, not Great Britain, that came to our aid in World War II when our country was under grave threat of invasion by the imperial Japanese forces in 1942. That brave decision of the then Labor Prime Minister John Curtin was the turning point in our relationship with the United States—a relationship that has since stood the test of time. Make no mistake about it, but for the intervention of the United States in defending the Pacific and northern Australia the war may have taken a very different turn.
As this motion rightly points out, the links between our nations in defence, intelligence, trade and investment continue to be strong. Our relationship with the United States is central to our security and prosperity now and into the future. The Turnbull government should be commended for recognising the importance of this relationship and for taking action to keep it strong. As has been widely reported, the Prime Minister took the initiative following last year's presidential election and was among the very first world leaders to speak to the new US President.
The actions of Prime Minister Curtin and, more recently, Prime Minister Turnbull are in stark contrast to the reckless and irresponsible attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition called the policies of the US President 'barking mad' and declared him 'entirely unsuitable' for the office which he now holds. Though we respectfully and constructively disagree with some of the President's views, hurling abuse at the democratically elected leader of our nation's most important ally can only be damaging for the interests of our country. And it further demonstrates just how unfit he is to lead this nation.
Last month, a matter of weeks into the new US presidency, our foreign minister visited Washington to meet with the Vice-President, Mike Pence, and the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. I understand that the foreign minister reinforced Australia's commitment to the alliance and our ongoing cooperation in responding to the regional and global challenges, including on the vital coalition to defeat Daesh. That is the responsible course. We must have constructive, frank and forthright dialogue with our closest ally, face to face. When we disagree, just as much as when we agree, we must work together in a mature and calm manner. That is what friends do. What we must not do is behave like the Leader of the Opposition, sniping from the sidelines and throwing insults at democratically elected world leaders in the name of cheap, political point scoring.
Mature discussion and concrete results are what we need, and they are what the coalition government has delivered. In defence, 2017 has seen the beginning of enhanced aircraft cooperation, with the arrival of the F-22 Raptor aircraft at RAAF Base Tindal. Fighter aircraft are an important area of cooperation, with real benefits for Australia in not only improved defence capacity but economic outcomes. The Joint Strike Fighter program alone will generate up to $4 billion in exports for Australia, benefiting Australian companies who have won Defence contracts to supply specialist equipment and logistics for the JSF project worldwide.
In innovation, the government has renewed our science and technology cooperation agreement with the US. Recognising that innovation will be vital to jobs and growth for the foreseeable future, we have negotiated to extend the agreement indefinitely for the first time. This program will facilitate ongoing partnerships between Australian and US research institutions. Partnerships such as that between the Australian Institute of Marine Science and Boeing, and between the Australian National Fabrication Facility and the US Air Force, are delivering important progress in areas like environmental monitoring and energy supply.
In immigration, the government is delivering on the resettlement of refugees from Nauru and PNG through a unique agreement with the United States. Many refugees have already been interviewed by US authorities. The ongoing arrangement shows the value of this government's positive and consistent engagement with our North American ally. This government's stance on immigration is, of course, in stark contrast to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era, when they left our borders in chaos and left many thousands trapped in indefinite detention.
Our historic, cultural, economic and military links with the United States are deep and strong. In the future, our security and prosperity will be greatly enhanced by the continuing friendship between our nations.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (11:43): Chuck Berry toured Australia in January and February in 1959 for the first time. He came back here four times—November 1973, September 1976, 1978 and September 1989. I was fortunate enough to attend one of his Australian concerts. The tour of that great American rock 'n' roll icon shows the deep cultural affinity Australians have with the United States. I recently saw mad Mel Gibson's great film Hacksaw Ridge. All of the actors were, practically, Australian. The great Richard Roxburgh, my personal favourite Hugo Weaving—all of them. It is very interesting that an iconic film about that great US medic and conscientious objector Desmond Doss, who saved 100 people on Okinawa, could be made almost exclusively with Australian actors.
That is the context in which this motion by the member for Canning, whom I praise for bringing this motion to the House, should be seen.
As the member for Gellibrand said, John Curtin made a famous declaration in 1941 that symbolically shifted that relationship of Australia towards the United States. Not only did Curtin insist that divisions be brought back home for the defence of Australia, including the 6th and 7th; he also made a little-known agreement with the President of the United States and Mr Churchill for the US 42nd Infantry Division to come to Australia for its defence, and for us to leave the 9th Division in the Middle East for its crucial role in the Battle of El Alamein. From the point of view of the victory of the Allies in the Second World War, that was a very wise agreement and again underlies the context in which the cooperation between Australia and the United States goes back. As one of the contributors said, it goes all the way back to the days of Monash, where the first 10 US companies involved in the First World War fought under Australian leadership at the Battle of Hamel on 4 July 1918. We have been with the Americans in every conflict since the First World War: the Second World War, obviously, Vietnam and many other places. Who can forget, for instance, Steven Spielberg's haunting film series The Pacific, where it was underlined that the 1st Marine Division came back from Guadalcanal, where they were nearly destroyed, and spent nine months in my city of Melbourne—nine months!—until they went back into service?
Regarding Australia's cooperation with the United States in intelligence, we have Pine Gap in the central part of Australia, the largest NSA/CIA base outside the United States, and it contributes to the peace of the world through its monitoring of missile launches in Russia, China and now, more pressingly, in North Korea. This has also led recently to the pivot—a bit disappointing—under President Obama, where only 1,250 US servicemen are here, but we have had, as someone pointed out, the squadron of Raptors arrive in Base Tindal for cooperation, and we have 30,000 troops serving together and getting experience in our regular biennial Exercise Talisman Saber.
The cooperation between Australia and the United States is seen at a technical level, at a military level and at an intelligence level, but it is underlined by our common democratic values and our huge business interests. Australia has $594 billion of investment in the United States. Iconic Australian companies like Visy and Westfield have their biggest representation there. We have enormous American investments in Australia that far outweigh any other investments by any other country. But I want to come back to this point: this entire cooperation is underlined, as pointed out in the motion of the member for Canning, by our common democratic values, our common systems, our common view of the world and the fact that we have a free press and freedom of assembly. The difference that the countries of the Five Eyes have compared to the rest of the world is something worth clinging to, and certainly being nonpartisan. I know that the member for Kooyong described the President of the United States as a dropkick. I do not think these kinds of things should be partisan. We should keep good relations with the United States, above all because of our common democratic values.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (11:48): I thank the member for Canning for bringing forward this motion on the relationship between Australia and the United States, no doubt shaped by our mutual experience of the alliance, and it is my privilege to work with the member on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, where we continue to focus on strengthening that alliance and relationship. It is a very special relationship that obviously spans culture and economy, but I want to talk particularly about the security sphere. Many people are not aware that we actually started serving with US forces—the US Marines, in that case—in the Boxer Rebellion in China in 1901, which was the last occasion that contingents from Australia fought in conflict before becoming part of the federated national army. It was a great surprise and privilege for me to see those photos on the wall of the Marine museum at the training depot in San Diego.
The relationship carried forward into the First World War. Every generation of my family has served in the military, and one of my family members served literally shoulder to shoulder with doughboys in the First World War at the Battle of St Quentin Canal in October of 1918, when the American II Corps, featuring the US 27th and 30th divisions, supported by the American 301st Heavy Tank Battalion, were engaged in a leapfrogging assault, during the course of which all the troops became very closely intermingled as some order broke down in that offensive, so our soldiers were fighting literally shoulder to shoulder with Americans in that battle. It carried forward right through the rest of the 20th century and into this century. My grandfather was a sergeant in the 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion in the Second World War and, after fighting in the Middle East, landed on Java with his unit. All of those troops there were abandoned and formed what became known as 'Black Force' out of the legacy units that were left behind, and included in those units was the 2nd Battalion of the 131st Field Artillery Regiment of the Texas National Guard. Those troops fought on to the bitter end, starving, out of ammunition, out of supplies, until finally they had to surrender to the Japanese in March 1942. All of those soldiers ended up on the Burma-Thai railway together, surviving indescribable atrocities and forming an even closer bond.
We have heard mention of Prime Minister Curtin's change of policy in ensuring that that relationship became an enduring one throughout the rest of our mutual histories. My own service has been greatly enhanced by being able to serve alongside US colleagues, particularly with the US Marines in Somalia, in Bosnia, in Timor-Leste, and I served embedded with the US forces in Iraq for over a year from 2003 to 2004, and since then have worked closely with our American friends in my roles in parliament on Afghanistan transition and in procurement issues. Those American friends and I, with a lot of other colleagues, together worked through developing concepts to deal with the changing face of conflict and the so-called 'three block war', which has become very regularly employed in most of the counterinsurgency and stabilisation operations that we have experienced since the end of the Korean War, in effect. But that also led to the situation in the Iraq war where many failings of political and strategic leadership were revealed. It points to the fact that our relationship is one where we do have a responsibility to be good allies and to point out where those failings occur.
Of course, there were a lot of salutary lessons out of Iraq, which I am hoping the new US administration will take on board. I was deeply involved in exposure to a lot of intelligence activities in Iraq that suffered greatly from very irresponsible signals sent by the former secretary Rumsfeld in relation to interrogation in particular. People might remember my close involvement in the Abu Ghraib matter. It is very important that we send the right signals to our people in the field. There are no gloves-off, winks, nods or other issues that could lead to very sad consequences. I would also urge our colleagues in the US to really be careful with and to struggle against any attempts to loosen the targeting regime, which in these types of environments could actually strategically threaten our position.
I am greatly heartened about the appointment of General Mattis, who has served within Iraq—he was the commander of the 1st Marine Division, referred to by the member for Melbourne Ports, which has as its shoulder flash the Southern Cross, and its unit anthem is Waltzing Matilda—General McMaster, who is also a great thinker, and General Kellogg, who was my chief of operations at the CPA. I am encouraged by that. It does hopefully point in the right direction for this relationship.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:54): It is a great privilege to speak on this important motion and pick up where the previous speaker began by highlight the importance of the messages and signals that we send, not just to our allies but to the general community, about how the enduring and important relationship between Australia and the United States not only provides the bedrock of our security in the region but also plays an important part in bringing together countries of like mind and like aspiration, now and into the future. One of my great concerns when we are dealing with the challenges of people who constantly test or question this relationship is that they do not see the commonality between our two great nations. When you think about Australia and the United States, there are very few countries that share the same degree of heritage where the influence has been an extremely positive one, but also has helped shape the foundations of our democracy itself.
When you think about the origins or foundations of Australia, many of the framers of our Constitution actually look to the United States as the foundation for our Constitution, understanding the importance of having government closest to the people it serves, through a system of federalism, but also making sure that you have elected checks and balances on the operations of our democracy, as we do through an elected House as well as an elected Senate. Each one of those principles is very important in shaping Australia as the liberal democracy that it is, because together we stand for the rule of law, together we stand for foundational freedoms. I was very glad to read in the press today that we are continuing to prosecute the case for foundational freedoms, like freedom of expression and the freedom of enterprise and economic opportunity.
It is not just our institutions, though, that bind our great nations together. There is of course an enduring relationship around security. It is our alliance that underpins our military capability and our general deterrent, to ensure we keep Australians safe and secure. Against ISIS, the coalition is helping to eradicate jihadism, misogyny, temporary forced marriage, polygamy and patriarchal coercion in the Middle East, as well as trying to keep people free across the world. Our special forces personnel are advising and assisting Iraqi services, alongside the forces of the United States, as well as training the Iraqi army and the Afghanistan security forces.
Our military alliance compliments the huge economic relationship that we also have with the United States. I think this is particularly important for one of the countries that consistently has been one of the greatest destinations of inward foreign direct investment into Australia. The United States has often been Australia's largest foreign investor, and continues to have that important relationship. It contributes so much to our economy. In 2015 it amounted to $173.5 billion. The stock of inward foreign direct investment from the United States was a substantial sum. It enables investment to come into this country to create jobs for Australians. But, more than create jobs for Australians, it also supports economic opportunities for Australians and builds the future of this country. If anybody is under any illusions about the human consequences of what happens when we do not have foreign direct investment, they just need to look around the world at places where that opportunity is denied.
The United States plays an incredibly important role in not just protecting our security but in helping to build its future. That is the critical point. We have other political parties in this nation, such as the Greens, questioning the enduring role of our relationship with United States. They are not just criticising or undermining our national security, they are also undermining the opportunity to build this country's future, because we need the enduring economic relationship we have with the United States. While we witness different political parties and activist groups, including the Greens, regularly critiquing the Trump administration in order to advance their long-held belief that the alliance should be scrapped—and it has been a long-held belief—in pandering to their ideological pursuits they ignore the human reality and the consequences of doing so. The danger of these views is both economic and strategic, not just for our nation but for every citizen. When we look around the world we know full well that we operate and exist in a region where there are differences of opinion, where strategic alliances are being redrawn, and we are going to face continuing challenges into the future. If we are not economically strong and we are not security strong, with the support and the assistance of the United States, we as a country will be more vulnerable into the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate will be adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
MOTIONS
National Archives of Australia Advisory Council
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (11:59): by leave—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Archives Act, this House appoint Mrs Prentice as a member of the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council for a period of three years.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Committee
Report
Mr GILES (Scullin) (12:00): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters I present the second interim report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 federal election: foreign donations. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.
Mr GILES: by leave—There is no more pressing task before this parliament than raising the standards and the standing of politics. Unless and until we can rebuild public confidence in the strength of our democratic institutions we will be unable to successfully prosecute the arguments we need to have about the direction of this country. It should be in everyone's interests that Australian politics is a genuine contest of ideas, testing alternative ways and means to secure our prosperity and wellbeing. A critical part of this challenge must be to deal with the influence, real and perceived, of money on politics. Donations reform is overdue. This report relates to one element of this, but a particularly important one: foreign donations. Now, around the world, we see increasing and disturbing evidence of state actors as well as corporate interests seeking to influence political outcomes in other countries. This is something members of this parliament must have regard to and is of course a serious matter that executive governments should consider.
Before I turn to my comments to the substance of this interim report, I should acknowledge the work of the chair of this committee, Senator Reynolds, who did a very good job through the hearings of managing what were complicated issues and differing views. I also acknowledge, of course, the work of the committee secretariat and its AEC advisers. Under challenging circumstances, they did very important work supporting the committee. This is of course an interim inquiry that involved not just a majority report but three dissenting reports. That is a testament to some of the challenges the members and senators put to those working with and for us.
In Australia there are significant constitutional obstacles to achieving donations reform. There are also complex practical and philosophical questions to be examined. Some of these things take time, but there are also some simple propositions that can and should be dealt with now. For nearly 10 years Labor has made the case for prohibiting foreign donations to registered political parties. How we have proposed to do this is to conduct extensive examinations in the hearings conducted in the course of preparing this interim report. No objection was advanced, legal or practical, to this approach, outlined in the bill presented some weeks ago by the Leader of the Opposition, looking to ban donations of foreign property.
So, let's get on with this and get back to work, through this committee process, on these more complex questions. Labor members have supported a dissenting report, having done our best to reach consensus, and we acknowledge the granting of additional time to this committee to try to reach such a consensus. We have done so because there remain four substantial failings in the report supported by coalition members. First and fundamentally, the report does not attempt to define a foreign donation in terms of its recommendations. This is a profound failing. It is true that the requirements of our Constitution pose challenges for lawmakers, but there is a way through. Labor's approach—banning donations of foreign property—has been tested, and the evidence has supported this as a practical way forward. No alternative has been seriously proposed. The government's failure to grapple with this question of what constitutes a foreign donation can be seen as making a mockery of this inquiry. This has been further emphasised by a very late submission on behalf of the Nationals that sought to water down this recommendation further.
Second, coalition members want dual citizens exempted from any ban. This is despite there being no reference to this issue in the body of the report or indeed in evidence to the committee, which raises the question: what is the report of such a recommendation? This is a matter that should be addressed.
Third, the report of government members goes beyond the committee's reference as well as the evidence before us in recommending that any prohibition apply to pretty much anyone or any organisation that has views on matters of public policy in Australia. This is an approach that would constrain many not-for-profit organisations in their vital advocacy work, damaging civil society, damaging our democracy.
Finally, it is said in recommendations by the majority that foreign funds being channelled through organisations that are not regulated or not presently regulated under the Commonwealth Electoral Act is a problem that must be attended to. There is little evidence before the committee in support of this. But that perhaps misses the point—that is, that there are other mechanisms that are available and that are within the purview of this committee's work that could and should be advanced to attend to this problem, such as regulating against donations splitting, putting in place lower disclosure limits and, of course, real-time disclosure, the approach Labor has advocated with provisions first put before this parliament almost a decade ago.
So, there is a bill before this parliament that would ban foreign donations to political parties as well as attend to many of the concerns voiced by those who support the majority report of this committee. This bill deserves to be debated and the substantive provisions adopted as soon as practicable, especially in circumstances in which no argument has been advanced against them. If this government is serious about cleaning up politics, it has no excuse not to act, and this committee must get on with its vital work. All of us on the committee must redouble our efforts to advance Australia's interests in the quality of our democratic processes.
Intelligence and Security Committee
Report
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (12:07): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the listing and re-listing of four terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code: Al-Qa'ida in the Indian Subcontinent, Islamic State in Libya, Islamic State Sinai Province and al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr HASTIE: by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's report on the listing and re-listing of four terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code.
The Criminal Code enables the committee to review all listings of terrorist organisations and report its findings to the parliament within the 15-day disallowance period.
It is an offence to direct the activities of, be a member of, associate with, or conduct a range of activities in support of a listed terrorist organisation.
Three of the four organisations reviewed by the committee were listed for the first time in November 2016:
al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, an al-Qaeda-affiliated extremist group that aims to advance al-Qaeda's anti-Western ideology in South Asia
Islamic State in Libya, an officially recognised Islamic State affiliate that adheres to the group's global jihadist ideology and aims to establish three Islamic State provinces in Libya
Islamic State Sinai Province, an officially-recognised Islamic State affiliate that has been tasked to help establish a caliphate in Egypt's Sinai province and, over the long term, Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
The committee also examined the re-listing of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP, as it is known), which was initially listed as a terrorist organisation in 2010 and re-listed in 2013. AQAP is active in Yemen and is described as 'one of al-Qaeda's most capable and active franchises'.
The committee called for submissions as part of its review and held a private hearing with ASIO and the Attorney-General's Department.
In each case, the committee was satisfied that the organisation was engaged in terrorist acts or advocated terrorism. The committee has therefore supported the listing of each organisation under the Criminal Code.
The committee noted that the three new listings came into effect immediately following registration of their regulations. This was contrary to the agreed practice for first-time listings.
The committee has raised the issue of timing in previous reviews of Criminal Code listings.
In this instance, the Attorney-General's Department advised that, due to an omission, it did not consider delaying commencement of the listings. The department has since updated its processes to ensure active consideration is given to delaying the commencement of all future first-time listings until the end of the disallowance period.
The committee maintains the view that, when there is no pressing risk to Australia's national security, listings should not come into effect until the parliamentary disallowance period has expired and the committee has conducted its review.
While the committee accepts that in many cases there may be compelling reasons for the listing of a terrorist organisation not to be delayed, the committee expects these reasons to be provided.
I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:11): This bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017, amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to provide for the appointment of a National Rural Health Commissioner. A National Rural Health Commissioner will, in turn, amongst other things, focus on putting in place a national rural generalist pathway. These are measures that I know have considerable support across rural health professionals and, through the commissioner, should also ensure that the rural health professionals will have an advocate for them who will, in turn, have a direct link to the minister.
It is seen by Labor as a step in the right direction in bridging the health divide between urban and outback Australia. So Labor will be supporting this legislation.
However, we believe that the legislation falls well short of what was hoped for. I particularly note that the commissioner's appointment is for a two-year period. The commissioner's position will be abolished in just three years' time, in July 2020. The commissioner will have to rely on negotiations with the health department for any staff requirements. It could also be a part-time position. Furthermore, there is a very strong emphasis on the position being primarily to establish a national rural generalist pathway, as important as that is.
Feedback from stakeholders, including the National Rural Health Alliance, also confirmed that this bill could be improved. I note, in the Rural Doctors Association of Australia press release of 8 February 2017, that the RDAA called for the appointment to be for four-to-six-year terms—that is, more than one four-to-six-year term. It is clear from the press release that the RDAA was hoping for an ongoing appointment.
Under this legislation, the National Rural Health Commissioner position, as I said earlier, terminates in 2020, without a review or any form of evaluation of the position being required under this legislation. Of course, the government of the day may choose to reconsider the termination or extend the position, but this legislation makes no provision for that whatsoever. Labor will therefore be moving amendments in the Senate that we believe will make this better legislation and which we ask the government to support.
Labor supports the establishment of a national rural generalist pathway. Queensland has now had a rural generalist pathway in place for a decade, I understand, and I have only heard positive feedback about the Queensland initiative. It would appear, therefore, that there is already a model in place that could be looked at and from which we can learn.
With adequate resourcing, there are of course many other matters that the Rural Health Commissioner may be able to address, given the many factors that contribute to health outcomes in rural and remote Australia. A national rural generalist pathway, however, whilst important, is only one of the many identified causes of disparity in health outcomes between urban, and rural and remote, Australians. A recent policy brief prepared by the Centre for Research Excellence in Medical Workforce Dynamics touches on many of the other issues that also need to be addressed. Nor should we neglect or in any way diminish the important role of other health professionals who work in rural and remote areas and who are often the first point of contact in providing health services.
As we know only too well, there is a wide disparity between health outcomes in rural and remote Australia and those in urban regions, and the statistics are very clear about that. It is well documented that those in remote communities have a higher burden of disease and a shorter life expectancy than urban dwellers. Lifespans for women and men are respectively two years and 3.4 years lower in remote areas. Suicide rates are twice as high. Chronic disease levels—including diabetes, coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—are all considerably higher. The ratio of health professionals in remote areas, particularly in specialised fields, is much lower than in the city. Dementia rates in outback Australia are also much higher than in urban regions, with a recent report indicating that around 40 per cent of dementia sufferers reside in rural or remote Australia. When you consider that less than a third of the Australian population resides in those areas, those statistics should at least sound warning bells for governments. For Indigenous communities, the gap is even wider, and I expect my colleague the member for Lingiari to talk further about that in the remarks he makes in respect of this legislation.
Rural health organisations have for years been highlighting the disparity and identifying obvious factors with respect to improving health services in country Australia. Those factors include, but of course are not limited to: the lower ratio and in some places the shortage of doctors; the remoteness, isolation and long travel distances, which create barriers for both health professionals and patients; poor communication and internet services; personal safety issues; the availability of fresh, healthy food; the harsh climate, which has its own impacts and effects on health outcomes; and the low socioeconomic status of many remote and rural communities, with many of Australia's lowest income families living in country Australia. All of these factors and others have a direct impact on health outcomes for rural and remote Australians.
There is direct correlation not just in country Australia but in all places between income levels and health outcomes. Numerous studies confirm that correlation. A snapshot of country Australia will confirm the struggles of many outback communities, some of which are on the lowest average income levels. I note, for example, that over 52 per cent of people in outer regional, remote and very remote areas do not have private health insurance. In major cities that figure is around 39 per cent—again a marked contrast. The recent 4.8 per cent increase in private health insurance rates, bringing to 23 per cent the rise in rates under this government, the Turnbull government, will make it even less attractive to privately insure. Addressing the economic disadvantage of communities is critical if we are to bridge the city-country health divide; otherwise, the divide will continue—just as it continues between rich and poor areas within large cities.
For that reason, the government's attempts to pass more costs onto patients by freezing the Medicare rebate, by cutting $1.3 billion from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, by increasing co-payments for medicines by $5, by making cuts to the Medicare safety net, by cutting $1.4 billion from preventative health and health promotion, and by cutting bulk-billing incentive payments to pathologists and radiologists will disproportionately affect rural and remote Australians. Country patients with limited incomes, already facing extra costs because of travel, will avoid doctor visits if their costs are increased, while country doctors, who have their own additional overheads to account for, will be pushed into even higher co-payments if their patient visit numbers fall. Patients and GPs both lose out. That brings me to the government's Health Care Homes trial. The RDAA has stated that rural packages should be allocated additional funding to cover the higher costs faced by rural health providers. I understand that, to date, no additional funding has been provided. I am certainly open to clarification on that from the minister, when he sums up on the debate. In my view, the trial is unlikely to provide a fair assessment of its effectiveness in rural and remote areas. The effectiveness will further be constrained because of the lack of choice or access to health professionals in some regional and remote areas.
As is well known, in many rural and remote places it is the nurses who provide frontline health services. I take a moment to make some remarks about their work. Two recent reports—one from CRANAplus and the other from the Northern Territory government—shine a spotlight on the difficulties encountered by health professionals, and particularly by nurses working in outback Australia. Almost 90 per cent of remote-area registered nurses are women, 40 per cent are over 50 years of age and the number with midwifery qualifications has almost halved over the past decade. While health workforce numbers have increased overall, the 2017 CRANAplus Remote Health Workforce Safety & Security Report found numbers in remote areas have actually declined by eight per cent. Both reports highlight the safety and security concerns of outback health professionals, listing a whole range of matters that need attention from both Commonwealth and state governments. There are multiple reported cases of sexual assault and physical violence, not just during the course of the healthcare providers' working day but also after hours in their own accommodation.
I will turn for a moment to rural scholarships, which are also a matter of some concern. This government is failing rural health students, having cut $72.5 million from health workforce scholarships. Those cuts have impacted on scholarships provided through Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health—that is, the SARRAH organisation—which will allocate a reduced number of allied health scholarships by the 2017 academic year under the Nursing and Allied Health Scholarship and Support Scheme.
In particular, I note their most recent update to parliamentarians on 7 March, in which they said: 'The Allied Health Undergraduate (Entry Level) Scholarship received 504 eligible applications, of which 144 identified as extenuating circumstances. These applicants include people who have experienced either sexual abuse or domestic violence, have a family member with mental health issues or a terminal illness or where both parents have died. SARRAH will only be able to offer five scholarships to these applicants.'
It is concerning that only five scholarships will be offered. The Health Workforce Scholarship Program, which amalgamates six scholarships into one program, was to be ready for the 2017 academic year but has now been again delayed. Those delays are already causing problems for students. For example, the interim funding arrangements for the Nursing and Allied Health Scholarship and Support Scheme have left a cohort of students beginning their studies in 2017 with funding uncertainty for future years. That is no way to try to boost and bolster our rural and remote health professional workforce.
It now also seems that the Taxation Office is considering taxing medical rural bonded scholarships, which would also result in diminishing their value. In response to an Australian Taxation Office discussion paper, the Australian Medical Association notes that scholarships paid to a full-time student at a school, college or university currently are exempt from taxation, subject to specific exemptions and conditions. However, my understanding is that a payment under a scholarship that is not provided principally for education purposes is not exempt. Nonetheless, the MRBS scheme has been treated as having tax-exempt status, with the Department of Health advising: 'MRBS scheme participants are not required to include the scholarship income in their tax return.'
The AMA's response goes on to say:
Current MRBS participants have entered the scheme with the clear understanding that scholarship payments would be tax exempt. This would have been a critical consideration in their decision to accept an MRBS place at university and, if the ATO changes its position on this, then they will have been fundamentally misled and now locked into commitments that they might otherwise have declined. If the ATO is intent on changing its position, then the tax exempt status of existing recipients should be grandfathered as part of any changes.
Having raised these matters, I would therefore ask the minister to clarify what the intention is with respect to the taxation treatment of medical rural bonded scholarships. I suspect that if taxation is going to apply to them in the future then many other scholarships may also begin to be similarly treated.
The bill also makes two other changes aimed at reducing red tape. Firstly, it abolishes the Medical Training Review Panel—the MTRP—which duplicates the functions of the National Medical Training Advisory Network. The National Medical Training Advisory Network was established as a response to the Health workforce 2025 report by Health Workforce Australia. However, it transitioned to the Department of Health when Health Workforce Australia was abolished. National Medical Training Advisory Network members agreed to assume the functions of the MTRP. A national report on medical education and training will continue to be produced each year and be published on the departmental website so stakeholders and other governments will continue to have access to the data.
Finally, the bill also repeals section 19AD, which creates a requirement to conduct reviews of the Medicare provider number legislation. The reviews are limited to sections 19AA, 3GA and 3GC. Notably, section 19AD does not allow the review of section 19AB , which requires overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of accredited medical schools to practise in a district of workforce shortage for 10 years.
Section 19AA requires doctors to have obtained postgraduate qualifications before they are able to access the Medicare Benefits Scheme. This affects both overseas and Australian trained doctors. Section 19AA was introduced in 1996. At the time, a number of groups in the medical workforce perceived it to be a risk to the future employment opportunities of the doctors in training at the time. As a safeguard, a sunset clause was included so that the parliament would need to approve the continuation of the measures in section 19AA. The sunset clause was removed in 2001 on the recommendation of a mid-term review of the legislation in 1999. It was replaced with section 19AD, which requires reviews every two years. In 2007, that requirement was changed to reviews every five years.
I briefly mentioned sections 3GA and 3GC, which 19AD also requires reviews of. Section 3GA allowed for the creation of a register of approved placements. This provides for the registration of medical practitioners in approved placements, which enables doctors subject to section 19AA to provide professional services while undertaking training towards fellowship. Section 3GC allowed for the creation of the Medical Training Review Panel, which, as I mentioned earlier, is being abolished.
As I said at the outset, this legislation could be improved. Whilst Labor will be supporting it, we will be moving amendments in the Senate. Those amendments will be aimed at improving the legislation by, firstly, broadening the scope of the commissioner's role. The bill states:
If requested by the Minister, the Commissioner may also provide advice to the Minister on matters relating to rural health reform.
I stress the words 'if requested by the minister'. We know that ministers in this place change, so the broadening of the scope of the commissioner is entirely dependent on the minister of the day. Our view is that the commissioner should, in fact, have that broader scope from the outset, and I believe that is what was the health professionals who I have spoken to in the course of the last 12 months or so would expect. This wording—as I stressed a moment ago—which refers to the request by the minister, along with the abolition of the position in such a short time frame, confirms our concerns that the government sees the role of the National Rural Health Commissioner as being to establish the national rural generalist pathway and to do little else. It would seem to me that by the time the commissioner is appointed and proceeds with the establishment of the national rural generalist pathway there may not be a great deal of time or scope for the commissioner to do much else beyond that. It would also seem to me, given that there are a whole range of other matters that have been brought to the attention of members of parliament with respect to what is needed to improve health service delivery in outback Australia, that there would be many other matters that the commissioner could apply himself or herself to, and that the role ought to be much broader than what it appears to be under this legislation. Indeed, from having read several of the papers prepared by the various health organisations, there is a range of other health professionals who, in their own fields, would equally like to see their specific areas addressed as much as those relating to GPs.
The other matter I refer to is reviewing the commissioners role. It would seem to me that the appointment of any position, and this is an important position, would warrant at some point in time a review of that role before it is terminated. I understand the commissioner will be reporting annually to the minister and I would expect that report to be made public. That would be one way of providing some measure of assessment as to how the role is working. But, regardless of that, it is more important to know what impact the commissioner has had on changing health service delivery in outback Australia prior to the termination of the appointment. It may well be that in three year's time the commissioner is halfway through a particular initiative that he or she would like to see completed, and it may warrant an extension of the commissioner's time. Under this legislation, new legislation would then be required to facilitate that.
I also note, and I mentioned this at the beginning of my remarks, that the commissioner is entirely dependent on negotiations with the Department of Health for any staff resources that may or may not be allocated. Again, it would seem to me that this immediately puts the commissioner in an awkward situation where, perhaps, the resources and support staff required are simply not there. In turn, that would limit the ability of the commissioner to perform the role as required and achieve the hoped for outcomes. Those are all matters of concern.
It is also of some concern that the position of commissioner may just be part-time under the act. I do not know if a short list has been drawn up by the minister, if an appointment is imminent or what sort of person is going to be appointed, but I have no doubt that at the time it will be a person who is able to fulfil the requirements specified under the act. But I would hope that it is not a part-time appointment because that would suggest that it is a three-year appointment which is reduced because it is only a part-time appointment.
Lastly, there have been some concerns that, because of the narrow focus that this legislation would appear to point the commissioner towards, there ought to be an advisory body of some sort established to which the commissioner could turn for advice, discuss matters and get firsthand responses about other initiatives that the commissioner might want to pursue. This would be an advisory board—unpaid—of health professionals from a broad cross-section of the various allied health professions who service outback Australia. Again, it would seem to me to be an eminently sensible suggestion. There is nothing to stop the commissioner from consulting the health professional bodies that currently exist, but it is always useful, as I found out only recently, to have them all sitting at a table together so that they can each hear each other's views on matters rather than individually approaching the commissioner—or the minister, for that matter—with their specific point of view. It makes more sense and, given we are suggesting that the advisory body need not be a paid body, it would seem to me that it would be a sensible proposition, which I ask the minister to consider.
Having made our position very clear and raised those concerns, I move the following amendment:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) the position of National Rural Health Commissioner terminates on 1 July 2020, and there is no provision in the bill to extend the position;
(2) there are no review provisions of the Commissioner's position within the legislation;
(3) the scope of the Commissioner's role is primarily focussed on the establishment of a National Rural Generalist Pathway and the bill appears to ignore other issues in rural health; and
(4) there is no advisory body proposed to assist the National Rural Health Commissioner with his or her work."
Our amendment makes Labor's position clear with respect to this legislation, and I commend it to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): Is the amendment seconded?
Dr Aly: I second the amendment.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:37): I rise in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. This bill represents a clear commitment by the coalition government to the health of the country's rural and remote populations. There are three aspects to this bill. Crucially, it establishes a National Rural Health Commissioner—an independent voice and staunch advocate for health services in the regional, rural and remote areas of Australia. The bill also repeals two sections of the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove redundant and ineffective legislative processes. Together they bring attention and action to vital services in rural Australia. I would like to commend the Assistant Minister for Health and former Minister for Rural Health for his vision and commitment to the wellbeing of these rural and remote communities. It is for this reason that I support the bill. Let me set the scene, if I may, with words I am sure you are familiar with, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan:
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror—
The wide brown land for me!
Dorothea Mackellar's poem quintessentially sums up much of what we love about Australia. Her words of course refer more to the bush, and it seems around seven million Australians agree with her wholeheartedly. A third of our population live in regional, rural and remote locations. My own electorate of Fairfax, on Queensland's beautiful Sunshine Coast, is a part of regional Australia. Even though we have more pristine white beaches than sweeping plains, we are indeed a sunburnt country with lots of mountains and there are parts of our region that are also rural. Not only is the Sunshine Coast the healthiest place on Earth and the lifestyle capital of Australia but also, like all regional and rural areas, we benefit enormously from a supportive community, high rates of volunteerism and more social capital than our city cousins.
However, it is an unacceptable reality that residents of regional areas—and especially rural and remote communities, of which Fairfax has only a sliver—experience poorer health outcomes, have higher levels of illness and exhibit a higher health need than those who live in cities. Indeed, on average, those who live in the bush do not enjoy the same access to health services and related infrastructure. This is why this bill is so essential. The establishment of a National Rural Health Commissioner is a crucial commitment of the coalition government and the cornerstone of the government's future investment in rural, regional and remote healthcare services. The government has committed $4.4 million to create and support the commissioner, who will provide frank and fearless advice and have the ability to influence the future of our country's rural healthcare policy.
One of the fundamental barriers to an effective rural healthcare system is the distribution of the country's healthcare workforce. It is recognised that the numbers of doctors with specialist and advanced rural experience and training is decreasing. I have first-hand knowledge of this in my own electorate of Fairfax. On the Sunshine Coast our smaller regional towns are fighting for primary healthcare providers. As the minister knows, I have been actively campaigning for assistance to attract a GP to the rural town of Kenilworth, whose 600 residents have been without a permanent GP for nearly two years now. It is also well known that my colleague the member for Fisher and I have been actively working together to try and secure additional medical places through the national review that is currently underway so that Griffith University can establish a medical school in our region. This is important so that some of best and brightest from our region who wish to study medicine can stay in the region while completing their entire degree. It is also important to attract future medicos not just to our region but to other regions and rural areas across Australia. If they can attend a local medical school it is far more likely that they will become interested in living and building a career in regional and rural areas. We can rest assured that the people of the Sunshine Coast are very alive to how important an effective distribution of health care workers is.
I am delighted, therefore, that the National Rural Health Commissioner will be taking responsibility for rural workforce issues. Innovative and sustainable medical practice solutions are exactly what is needed for smaller, harder to reach regional towns. Critical to this is the development of a national rural generalist pathway—a core step towards strengthening the rural medical workforce. A rural generalist pathway is not a new concept. There are varying degrees of support and infrastructure available at a state level, but what is not currently available is a coordinated national approach, and this is the gap that will be filled by this legislation.
It should be noted that the National Rural Health Commissioner will not be a lone ranger; he or she will work closely with those who are best placed to advise on the needs of regional, rural and remote communities—the people who live and work there. It is the rural and remote people themselves who are best placed to understand the issues and to develop and manage the solutions. The commissioner will work directly with these community stakeholders, the health sector, universities, specialist training colleges and across all levels of government to gain the best understanding of the issues and advise the government on how to address them.
It is recognised by the Rural Doctors Association of Australia that there is a
…pressing need for reforms to build a rural medical workforce with the qualifications, skills and experience to deliver a generalist medical service that spans the general practice and hospital setting. Without this workforce, the health outcomes of people living in rural and remote areas will continue to lag behind their urban counterparts.
We do not expect every remote town to have the range of medical and health services of our cities and metro areas, but we do expect access to appropriate, high-quality primary healthcare services for people in regional, rural and remote locations.
The appointment of the commissioner and development of the national rural generalist pathway are means to help achieve that very end. The commissioner will work with the rural health sector and training providers to define what is a rural generalist and to develop options for increased access to training and appropriate remuneration, recognising their extra skills. Rural doctors are different to those in the cities: they need a broader and specialist skill set to bridge the gap in services experienced in the communities they serve. These skills require training; they should be recognised and they should be remunerated accordingly.
These are the types of initiatives needed to bring healthcare professionals out of the cities and into our rural, regional and remote communities. But we are not just talking about GPs and specialist doctor services. The commissioner will be responsible for advising on opportunities to improve rural health careers more broadly. This includes the areas of Indigenous health, nursing, dental health, mental health, midwifery and allied health. There is significant scope to provide a national approach to multidisciplinary healthcare delivery across other healthcare services as well.
The bill also cleans up two sections of the act, which are now redundant. It was identified that the functions of the Medical Training Review Panel were being duplicated by the National Medical Training Advisory Network. Members of the panel themselves recommended it be abolished. This has now been done, and removing the related legislation from the act is the logical next step. The repeal of laws that reviewed the Medicare provider number legislation is also a prudent decision. The current legislation calls for the regular review of the Medicare provider number laws to ensure there are no unintended consequences, or burden, placed on agencies. Three reviews have been conducted with no issues identified. Surely, therefore, there is no need for continued further review. The Medicare provider number legislation is well established and it is working as intended.
Locally-based services play a key role in the sustainability of our regional, rural and remote communities, and healthcare services are a core component of this. The appointment of the National Rural Health Commissioner is an essential element to ensure the future way of life in outback Australia and in rural and regional communities continues. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (12:49): I too rise to speak on the Health Insurance (National Rural Health Commissioner) Amendment Bill and I do so because I feel very strongly, as all of us do on this side, about the adequate provision of health care for all Australians, regardless of where they live. This bill, as we heard, amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable the appointment of a National Rural Health Commissioner. We heard earlier from the member for Makin that Labor will not be opposing this legislation, because we recognise the absolute need to address the problem of attracting and retaining doctors in areas where they are needed. Of course, those areas are the regions and rural areas.
An ABC article in January of this year discussed the possibility of a number of rural and remote communities risk being wiped out unless the shortage of basic medical facilities is addressed. It is only natural that people want services when they are living in a particular area, or if they are contemplating moving to a regional or rural area, and one of those basic services is health. The Rural Doctors Association of Australia president, Ewen McPhee, said that unless there was a renewed focus on the basic needs of smaller rural communities across Australia there would be dire consequences.
I do support the concerns raised by the member for Makin. One of those is that the position of the National Rural Health Commissioner terminates on 1 July 2020. There is absolutely no provision in the bill to extend that position. Another concern is that there are no review provisions of the commissioner's position within the legislation. The scope of the commissioner's role is primarily focused on the establishment of a national rural generalist pathway, and the bill appears to ignore other issues in rural health. Further, there is no advisory body proposed to assist the National Rural Health Commissioner with his or her work.
We know that Australians who live in regional and remote areas are getting sicker more often and waiting longer to see a doctor than their city counterparts. The contrast of this is starkest for those in remote areas, where, for example, average lifespans of women and men are respectively two years and 3.4 years lower than city dwellers. That is a stark difference. Suicide rates, for example, are twice as high in rural and regional areas. Chronic disease levels, including diabetes, coronary heart disease, lung disease, eye diseases and chronic obstructive lung diseases are considerably higher; yet, despite much poorer health, the average yearly Medicare benefits schedule spend per individual in remote areas is $536, compared with $910 in major cities. For Indigenous people the situation is even more dire, with men living two years less in regional areas and seven years less in very remote regions.
I suppose it is the nature of Australia, with its scattered rural and remote populations, that providing essential services to these communities is costly. But it is also absolutely necessary, regardless of the cost. It highlights the dangers of privatising certain aspects of these essential services. This is why we must be vigilant. We know that the ratio of health professionals, particularly in specialised sectors, is much lower in rural Australia than in the city areas. This means that, while the health of Australians is improving in many areas around the nation, there is still a big gap based on where you live. About one in three people living outside the cities and CBD areas reported longer than acceptable waiting times to see a general practitioner. The reasons for these gaps are many.
Personal safety is a high priority issue for rural and remote health workers, as well. This is certainly an area that must be addressed to remove some of the barriers to recruiting more workers to rural areas, especially health workers, GPs and medical professionals. According to the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, incentives to get doctors to move to remote areas are inadequate. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's 2008 report, for example, found that the number of medical practitioners was rising, but not in the right places. At the time of the report there were 335 doctors per 100,000 people in the big cities, compared with just 135 in remote Australia. The situation has certainly got worse since this report came out in 2008. Small town doctors often act in several capacities. They need separate skills to those of city doctors. They act as the local GP, the hospital's visiting medical officer and the after-hours responder in many cases. This is a very demanding job.
What has the coalition done to address rural and remote health care availability in the past? The establishment of the National Rural Health Commissioner is certainly a step in the right direction. The question is whether it will be enough to address those inadequacies that exist in rural areas. Importantly, will this compensate for past bad decisions? For example, one of the first health cuts made by this government was abolishing Health Workforce Australia. Abolishing Health Workforce Australia disproportionately impacts directly on the rural and remote health workforce, because that is where the largest imbalances exist.
So let us not forget that this is a government that has failed rural health in multiple ways. Some of those ways where they have failed rural health are through the Medicare benefits schedule freeze, the increases in the cost of medicines, cuts to pathology bulk-billing incentive payments and cuts to health workforce scholarships.
With this in mind, as we heard earlier, the Labor opposition will be moving amendments in the Senate that we believe will make this better legislation and which we ask the government to support. The amendments will be to broaden the scope of the commissioner's role, review rather than cease the commissioner's role on 1 July 2020 and establish an unpaid advisory board to support the commissioner with good, adequate advice. This will go some way to address the shortcomings contained in this particular bill. The commissioner will be appointed by the minister on either a full-time or part-time basis for a period of up to two years, and is only eligible if they have experience in rural health. The commissioner must provide a report each year to the minister for presentation to the parliament about the commissioner's activity, and the commissioner will have a number of tasks, including providing advice to the minister on matters relating to rural health reform upon request, defining what it means to be a rural generalist and developing a national rural generalist pathway. A rural generalist pathway provides postgraduate medical students with training and development to become a rural generalist, although it would be the role of the commissioner to define what it means to be a rural generalist.
The question remains about whether this is slightly superfluous, given that there is already an existing definition based on the Cairns Consensus from the 2014 World Summit on Rural Generalist Medicine. There is no doubt that the commissioner appears to be given a very narrow role. Whilst the development of the national rural generalist pathway is welcome, it is quite unclear that the commissioner will have much more of a role than that. The government had the opportunity to establish a commissioner's office with real political support and clout, which could put rural and remote health on the agenda, bringing those levels back up to the level of what we have in the cities, or close to it.
What does it mean exactly to give the commissioner a life span only until 1 July 2020, without any knowledge of the future after 2020? At that point the commissioner will cease to exist. That is only around three years. It is not really long enough to address these complex problems. I must say that the idea is not really original, either. Labor had already committed to appointing a rural health commissioner in the lead up to the federal election. We also announced that we would establish a health reform commission, whose job it would be to deal with rural and regional health workforce matters.
Now we know, from the reaction to Labor's announcement prior to the elections, that such measures as are contained in this bill would be largely welcomed by the main stakeholders. However, I believe that what stakeholders, practitioners and patients want is a clear commitment to the provision of adequate health care in rural areas. The reason there is a level of insecurity around whether this government actually has the commitment is its track record of turning its back on our universal healthcare system.
When Labor introduced the Medicare system in 1986, it had been met with strong opposition by the coalition from 1983, when the Hawke government first began it. It was only after the coalition's fifth successive defeat, in the 1993 federal election, that John Howard committed the coalition to retaining Medicare because he accepted the reality that the Australian public valued Medicare.
Moves towards privatising elements of health care currently covered by Medicare, as we have seen the coalition government do, are a stealth strategy of incremental cuts to reform Medicare as a safety net for the poor. They have adopted strategies of incremental cuts, by tinkering with Medicare, that are designed to gradually erode the broader public's confidence in, commitment to and support for Medicare. We must stand up and fight these moves, or the tipping point will be reached and Medicare will be recast as merely a welfare program for the poor. I therefore support the amendments that will be moved in respect of this bill in the upper house and urge the House to support them.
Mr DRUM (Murray) (13:01): It is a great opportunity to be able to stand in this place and talk on the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. I was in the House last sitting when the Assistant Minister for Health, Dr David Gillespie, got up and read the second reading speech to the House. It was great that we had a situation where someone with an extensive knowledge of the health industry—a gastroenterologist—was able to talk on issues surrounding rural health, and that someone who has spent an enormous amount of time in the rural health sector as a professional is able to then adjudicate over the introduction of this commissioner.
The introduction of the National Rural Health Commissioner was a major platform of the National Party in the last election. It was one that the then minister, Fiona Nash, was able to put front and centre as, more or less, a line in the sand, saying: 'We cannot accept this inequality that exists in rural health and regional health any further. We need to understand that, yes, we might have enough doctors, when you look at the Australian population and divide it by the number of GPs and the number of specialists that we have; however, you would be a fool to suggest that we have all those doctors in the right places. Therefore, what we need to do is have a continual referencing and a continual filtering to make sure that, as we expect, the third of our population who live outside of the major regional cities have a very efficient and very world-class health service.'
We also understand that that is just not the case at the moment. We also understand very clearly that, if you do live in rural and regional—but predominantly rural—Australia, you are going to be in that bracket of people who experience a higher rate of chronic disease than would our metropolitan cousins. We have a shorter life expectancy in rural Victoria and rural Australia. We have higher risk factors of smoking, excessive drinking and obesity. This is often put in place primarily because, in many of the areas we are talking about, we have lower wages and lower incomes. It is becoming more and more apparent now that education has a direct correlation to wealth and that when you map our wealthier and our poorer suburbs you get another direct correlation between wealth and health.
Of those health areas, the first to shine through from having low wealth in the economy, or in the community, is that you find things such as certain types of cancers. You are going to find that areas such as oral health and dental health are some of the first areas that are going to show very, very poor outcomes. And, quite simply, people do not have the money to go and get skin cancers checked. They do not have the money to go and get some ailments that may be threatening and worrying checked. They simply do not have the time or do not have the money to invest in some of the high-priced services that might be available. Certainly the opportunity to get this work done cheaply sometimes does not exist in the regions. Plus, the distance to the services becomes cost prohibitive and becomes time prohibitive. And, quite simply, we know that there are higher rates of preventable cancers, such as melanomas and lung cancers, in regional Australia and rural Australia than there are in metropolitan Australia.
I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party has continually said that it is our job in here to make sure that, for those who are doing it tough, we do not make their lives tougher. I think that is something that we just need to understand. This bill is going to, hopefully, create a system where the commissioner will be able to highlight and pinpoint significant gaps in our health system and our health services and will be able to then report those gaps back to the minister to be able to bridge those gaps in our health system.
The former minister, Fiona Nash, who was able to argue for and deliver this policy through the previous election campaign, has labelled this as a bold and historic commitment. I want to commend her for pushing this initiative through. We are going to make sure our rural and remote communities will be able to acknowledge that there is someone who is going to champion and advocate on their behalf to make sure that they get the health services delivered to the locals in their area that they may otherwise be lacking. Going back to where I started, this is because we have that deep line principle that every Australian should have access to a high-quality standard of health care no matter where they live. This first ever National Rural Health Commissioner will be an integral part of the agenda to deliver those more equitable health services.
To establish this role, we are going to have to amend the Health Insurance Act of 1973. This will be a statutory provision enabling the commissioner to carry out their duties independently and transparently. We expect that this position will be totally independent and completely impartial, and the person who fills this position will need to be a fearless champion to carry out the roles within this area. The commissioner will have to do work with the health sector, the universities and the specialist training colleges across all levels of government and will have to champion the cause of rural practice. It would be expected that the commissioner would be someone with extensive experience in the health sector, someone who can consult with a whole range of different players within the health sector and someone who has a real passion for creating some improved outcomes in the future as opposed to what we are putting up with at the moment. This position will roll for two years.
Once appointed, we expect the commissioner to develop a national rural generalist pathway. Again, in sitting down and talking to some GPs last week in my electorate office in Shepparton it became very clear that once someone has completed their medical degree they are about halfway through their training if they wish to become a GP. It is quite shocking when you look at the degree of training and the areas of specialty that we expect our doctors to continue to train in and work towards.
One of the troubles we have in rural Australia is the lack of ability to not just attract but keep many of these health specialist professionals. If we are able to look at ways we could retain the health professionals we are able to attract I think we will be in a much better position. It is also worth acknowledging that in rural Australia our rural generalists tend to have more advanced training than those from a metropolitan centre. We understand that they have a wider set of skills. They obviously have more demand. They work longer hours across a whole range of different incidents and accidents that force them to do work that may be slightly outside their comfort zones. But the sheer nature of life in rural and remote Australia is that if an accident has happened and an injury has occurred then sometimes doctors have no option but to act to the best of their ability.
We also expect that healthcare planning and programs of service delivery must be adapted to meet the widely differing health needs of different communities. Again, one of the areas that I think we can do more work in is strategy and planning. Most regions would have a major regional hospital and, from there—maybe within a drive of 20, 30 or 40 minutes—you would find five or six other smaller hospitals. We need each of those health centres and hospitals to work together in a strategic manner so we do not have duplication of service. The quid pro quo of having duplicated services is that you have total gaps in other services. We need the ability for many of these regions to have healthcare plans put in place to make sure that each of these both larger and smaller hospitals are working hand in glove to ensure that, wherever possible, they are complementing each other and working with each other and not against each other.
There will also be a couple of other amendments to the act in relation to the repealing of section 3GC to abolish the medical training review panel. We understand that in 2014 it was revealed that the Medical Training Review Panel identified a strong overlap between their function and that of the National Medical Training Advisory Network. So repealing the review panel is going to enable this duplication to be cleared up. Also, it will remove the burdensome and ineffective process of the five-year review. It has been more or less acknowledged that these reviews have been ineffective. So, therefore, taking this aspect out of the act will also be a promising and positive initiative.
As I said, we are really looking forward to this commissioner position coming into play. This is going to be an investment of over $4.4 million in rural health to have that real champion who will have the capacity to acknowledge where the gaps are and to acknowledge what is working well. I know some of the PHNs are looking at doing this type of work as well. The health situation we find ourselves in is very, very complex. In many instances it is very frustrating, because so much of the health budget is determined by our states, and so much of the health funding is delivered to the states by the Commonwealth government. And generally what you see when you have more than one body responsible for an outcome, and what you would normally find, is that nobody takes responsibility when things go wrong. This is one of the issues: if we were wanting to start now and get ourselves a well-thought-out process for delivering health services to all Australians, we would not start where we are at the moment. But the fact is, we have got what we have got, and we have to look at the best way forward. This initiative, driven by Fiona Nash and carried on now by Minister Gillespie, is going to see a real champion with the sole objective of making sure that the health needs of rural and remote Australians are well serviced—making sure that, if there are gaps, that those gaps are identified, and that the information about those gaps is then delivered and passed directly through to the Minister for Health, to ensure that appropriate action is taken and that those services can then be best delivered to those people in Australia who most need them. The whole conversation will then revolve around asking questions like whether we have an equitable health system, whether the health needs of people that live in rural and remote Australia are well serviced, and whether we can start closing the gap between the health outcomes of our people in metropolitan Melbourne versus those in regional cities versus those in remote and smaller rural communities.
Mr HART (Bass) (13:16): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on the bill before the House, the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017, which amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to establish a national rural health commissioner. The role of the commissioner will be to provide advice to the minister on the role of the rural generalist and to develop a national rural generalist pathway. I acknowledge that attracting and retaining health professionals in the regional and remote areas of Australia is a key factor in improving health outcomes and access to health services in rural communities.
I spend a lot of time in the more regional and rural areas of my electorate of Bass and, unfortunately, these areas experience many of the same health issues that impact regional Australia generally. Australians living in rural and remote areas have much poorer health outcomes than those living in our major cities. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australians in remote areas experience mortality rates that are 1.4 times higher, and suicide rates that are double those experienced by Australians living in major cities. Chronic disease is much more prevalent in rural and regional areas, with rates of asthma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and mental health problems all higher than in urban areas. The social determinants of health emphasise that this disadvantage, in all of its forms, flows through to health outcomes. Rural Australians have a higher incidence of risk factors including smoking, being overweight, physical inactivity, alcohol consumption and high blood pressure, compared to their city-dwelling counterparts. Lower levels of health literacy and, often, living in relative social isolation also contribute to the problem. In light of this, it is of particular concern to me that the numbers of health professionals in rural areas, particularly in specialised sectors, are much lower than in metropolitan areas. Indeed, the association between the poorer health status of people in rural areas and the lack of access to health services has been broadly acknowledged in the research. Clearly, there is a need for greater access to health services in regional Australia. There is also much to be done by way of investment in preventative health, as well as in management of chronic conditions after they have been diagnosed. There is also much research to suggest that by combating disadvantage, through education programs and increasing educational attainment across communities, you achieve significant reductions in chronic disease.
The introduction of a specialised rural generalist pathway is a step towards addressing the lack of access to training for doctors in regional communities. This is why, during the last election campaign, Labor announced that we would establish a health reform commission tasked with the challenge of dealing with rural and regional health workforce matters. Labor will not be opposing this legislation. However, whilst we welcome the development of a rural generalist pathway, it remains unclear if the commissioner will have much more of a role than that. In particular, it is a concern that under this legislation the office of the commissioner will cease to exist on 1 July 2020. To this end, Labor will be moving amendments in the Senate which we believe will make for better legislation and which we ask the government to support. These amendments will be aimed at improving the proposed legislation by broadening the scope of the commissioner's role, by reviewing rather than ceasing the commissioner's role on 1 July 2020, and by establishing an unpaid advisory board to support the commissioner. Without these amendments, this is something of a missed opportunity to create a commissioner with real political support and clout who would put rural and remote health on the agenda—that is, on a permanent basis.
The coalition has a rather poor record on rural and remote health. If this government wants to make a genuine difference to the health and wellbeing of rural Australians, in particular of those living in Tasmania, one suggestion I might make is to make a long-term funding commitment to organisations like Rural Alive and Well Tasmania. Rural Alive and Well, or RAW, is a not-for-profit organisation that provides outreach support, information and strategies to rural Tasmanians, with a focus on mental health issues and suicide prevention. I was fortunate to attend the inaugural event held by the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, organised by my colleagues the members for Berowra and Eden-Monaro. That event was addressed by an international expert in suicide prevention, David Covington. It was interesting to note that, of the risk factors identified for premature death, a lifetime history of cigarette smoking was identified as risk factor No. 2, with social isolation ranking above that. I spoke in my first speech about the disadvantage within my electorate, and I spoke of the dangers of social isolation and all of the associated health issues that have been identified as flowing from that social isolation. Organisations like RAW are essential to ensuring the ongoing health of our regional communities; particularly in Tasmania, which has the second-highest rate of suicide nationally.
In 2016 RAW worked alongside some 20 regional communities enlisting stronger community participation in local suicide prevention and wellbeing initiatives. This included direct contact with over 2,000 individuals, as well as working with over 250 families across my state. However, RAW will be forced to cut its life-saving outreach services if it fails to secure further government funding. If the government are as committed to the improvement of the health and wellbeing of regional Australians as they claim to be then I would urge them to commit sufficient funding to Rural Alive and Well, and other organisations working in this space nationally, in addition to the steps they now propose under this initiative, to ensure that our rural communities have ongoing access to both the mental and physical health services they need.
We should also not forget that one of the first health cuts made by the coalition was to abolish Health Workforce Australia. HWA was established by Labor in 2009. The premise was a simple one: if Australia was to have the best—and most efficient—health care then health workforce planning needed a coordinated, long-term approach. The abolition of HWA was a particular blow to the regional, rural and remote health workforce because that is where the largest imbalances existed. As will be outlined later in this speech, this is an issue that has dogged government for some years.
I know from my experience as a member of the governing council of Tasmanian health organisation North that regional health organisations, even in a large regional city like Launceston in northern Tasmania, can struggle to provide for renewal of their health workforce. This extends not just to staff within our public health but also to general practice. I know that North experienced difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff—from specialised surgical staff, medical staff, nursing staff and allied health staff right down to the range of support staff necessary to ensure the efficient and effective running of a complex 24-hour, seven day a week operation.
At the other end of the scale, I am aware of the pressures facing general practice in recruiting general practitioners to a regional city. Many GPs complained that they were working long hours and were unable to provide for the succession of their practices as there were no general practitioners willing to work within the city or on its outskirts. These difficulties have been recognised in studies undertaken over many years. The critical nature of medical workforce shortages in rural areas has been identified in reports over the last 30 years.
It was thought at one stage that the medical workforce was in adequate supply; the lack of supply of medical practitioners in rural and remote areas was attributed to maldistribution of the medical workforce. There have been successive attempts to address this issue with a combination of approaches including additional Australian general practice trainees, the use of overseas trained doctors, maximising the workforce participation of existing general practitioners and the introduction of new models of care.
Despite this response, the maldistribution is still occurring. The medical practitioner supply between 2000 and 2004 was found to have risen in metropolitan regions and again demonstrated a shortfall in non-metropolitan regions. The current situation, despite all efforts, still demonstrates a maldistribution between rural and urban areas, although there are some improvements in some areas. It is obvious, therefore, that many rural communities must struggle in the recruiting and retention of basic medical services through the attraction and retention of staff necessary to run a general practice or a local hospital.
Prior to its shutdown in 2014, HWA's efforts delivered an additional 446 nurses and allied health professionals in rural and regional communities. In their submission to the Senate inquiry into the abolition of HWA the National Rural Health Alliance noted that many people in rural and remote Australia have poor access to many types of health professionals and the services they provide. Further, the alliance emphasised that HWA had been investigating the need for integration of education, training placement and hospital training activity for medicine and other health professions with a view to improving access to a range of medical professionals and services for regional communities.
I would note that, since the Turnbull government abolished HWA, there has been a general decline in the number of full-time equivalent general practitioners in remote and regional areas. Nevertheless, this legislation seeks to address this issue with the establishment of a commissioner to provide advice to the relevant minister on the role of the rural generalist general practitioner, to develop a national rural generalist pathway and to provide advice on rural health reform generally.
The role of a rural generalist is to recognise as a matter of policy that medical practitioners in rural and remote areas are required to have a broad range of skills in order to serve their local communities. It is said that today a rural generalist is likely to be a GP who works in community based primary care but also in an acute care setting and has specialist skills in particular areas—typically obstetrics, anaesthetics and/or surgery. Many years ago GPs may have routinely delivered obstetric and/or anaesthetic services and/or minor surgeries, but specialisation has led to a reduction in this and a preference to deliver more specialised services in larger centres. The rural generalist model has been extensively analysed in a systematic review conducted in 2007 and subsequently in a Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry in 2012. Importantly, there is also an existing model, which is the rural generalist pathway developed by Queensland Health.
There are, no doubt, areas in which specialisation will be the most effective and efficient way to deliver health care. Nevertheless, there are areas in which specialisation is inappropriate, particularly for those who demand access to safe, efficient and effective health care near where they live. However, the adoption of a rural generalist pathway is not without challenges. Whilst it might be argued that a medical practitioner choosing to adopt a pathway as a rural generalist might be treated in the same way as a form of specialisation, there is still some publicly expressed concerns that safety and quality issues may determine that certain procedures are not appropriate for a rural generalist. For example, there are some procedures which are of such complexity that a practitioner is required to demonstrate proficiency through exposure to a sufficient number of procedures over the course of a year.
Specialisation facilitates the concentration of types of work in the hands of those who possess particular skills. There may be concerns as to safety when there are low volumes of procedures to be performed by a particular practitioner, notwithstanding that that person may be otherwise well qualified and experienced in general practice. The review undertaken in 2007 noted that there are other structural barriers to the delivery of generalist services, including the growth of fly-in fly-out specialist services, improved retrieval services, role delineation of hospitals, rising medical indemnity costs and litigious populations. Overall the 2007 review concluded that the generalist model is a practical and cost-effective means of meeting the comprehensive health needs of rural and remote communities, which have lower population densities.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. Debate may be resumed in a later hour, and the member for Bass will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his presentation.
Mayo Electorate: Mount Lofty Ranges
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:30): The Mount Lofty region is pursuing a UNESCO World Heritage bid, and I want to publicly put my support behind its efforts. The Mount Lofty Ranges span my electorate from north to south, with small towns dotting our beautiful agrarian landscape. Some compare our Mediterranean climate and landscape to the UNESCO World Heritage region of Tuscany, but, with no offence to the Italians, I believe that our region is even more spectacular. Often, a World Heritage listing seeks to keep buildings or places in much the same condition that made them special in the first place. Our bid is about maintaining the significance of the Mount Lofty Ranges as a viable agricultural region with a vibrant and continually evolving cultural landscape.
And so, this Wednesday evening, I will be hosting a presentation with people from the UNESCO World Heritage bid, and I welcome my fellow members of this House and senators to come along and learn more about it. Critically, our bid will also provide us with the opportunity to solidify and project our reputation as a top quality agricultural, viticultural and horticultural producer and exporter. And those that live in the Mount Lofty Ranges, including students from Stirling East, are well aware of what a quality region we have, and we look forward to sharing that with the world.
Maranoa Electorate: Small Business
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (13:31): In my electorate of Maranoa, there are more than 30,000 small businesses working hard to support their local communities. Small business, particularly in smaller towns, thrives because of its connection to and enduring support of its community.
This month, the Lucy Walker Chemmart Pharmacy in Goondiwindi was named the Australian Pharmacy Guild Pharmacy of the Year for 2017. In the guild's praise of the Lucy Walker Chemmart Pharmacy, the team in Goondiwindi were recognised for setting an exceptional example of a pharmacy transforming to a model of care that supports the local community. The guild also praised Lucy herself for her strong commitment to staff development and welfare, rightly acknowledging that this commitment formed a strong foundation in ensuring the outstanding performance of staff in the provision of advice and services to customers and patients.
Having personally visited Lucy and her team, I can assure you that the title bestowed on Lucy Walker's pharmacy is truly deserved and epitomises the integral nature of reliable and trustworthy health services in the country. Well done to Lucy and her team for their hard work and dedication to the health of the Goondiwindi community. It is your passion and dedication that make living in places like Goondiwindi so great.
Michael Hughes Foundation
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:33): There is an amazing organisation in my community which literally saves lives. The Michael Hughes Foundation turn bystanders into first responders in cases of sudden cardiac arrest. Their mission is to increase the number of defibrillators in our community and to train people to use them effectively. There are around 30,000 incidents of cardiac arrest each year in Australia, and the out-of-hospital survival rate is less than nine per cent. On average, New South Wales Ambulance responds in between eight and 11 minutes, but it only takes four minutes for brain damage to occur and, after eight minutes, there is very little chance of survival.
The foundation aim to install more than 100 defibrillators and train over 500 people. They came to my attention when they applied for and were granted $20,000 through the Stronger Communities Program last year. The Michael Hughes Foundation are currently looking for expressions of interest from local community groups who want to become heart safe. They have secured funding for 43 defibrillators across Parramatta, and there are still 15 to be allocated. It is a great opportunity for community organisations not only to have a defibrillator installed but also to be provided with the necessary training.
The organisation's executive director, Julie Hughes, was not always an activist. Four years ago, her husband, Michael Hughes, died of cardiac arrest soon after the birth of their daughter. He was 38 years old. In the midst of such loss, Julie has worked to do something positive for our community so that others might not have to endure the preventable loss of a loved one. Thank you to the Michael Hughes Foundation for your great work.
Corangamite Electorate: Geelong
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:34): I rise to commend the government on our City Deals policy, which drives agreements between all levels of government to deliver investment and opportunity. Last week, I am very pleased to say here in the chamber, I convened a roundtable with the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation, the member for Hume, along with local government mayors, CEOs, the Committee for Geelong and the Geelong Chamber of Commerce, and also Elaine Carbines from G21, pushing our case, Minister, for a City Deal for the Geelong region. Through City Deals, governments, industry and communities are developing collective plans for growth and committing to the actions, investments, reforms and governance needed to implement them. Sadly, across the Geelong region, planning has been poor. A City Deal will force all three levels of government around the table and agree on an action plan.
As part of the Townsville City Deal, an independent development corporation has been established. That is exactly what we need for Geelong. Under Premier Andrews, there are few major infrastructure projects in the pipeline for the Geelong region and for Corangamite. We are still waiting to see a business case for the Geelong Convention and Exhibition Centre. We need fast rail to Melbourne, we need an East West Link to unclog the West Gate Bridge, and we need more investment in tourism. This week, G21 will meet with the Prime Minister. We are lobbying, Minister, very hard for a City Deal for our region.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Harmony Day
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:36): Tomorrow is Harmony Day, Australia's annual celebration of multiculturalism, diversity and an inclusive community based on respect and a sense of belonging for all. Yesterday our community came together to celebrate through the annual Kingsford Smith Harmony Day cricket game, bringing together people of all backgrounds with the local police to partake in that great Australian tradition of a game of cricket and a barbecue. Despite the deluge of rain that Sydney has had over the course of the last week, it could not stop the game of cricket going ahead. We transferred it to an indoor cricket game and I am pleased to report that, despite the indoor cricket proceeding, the yellow shirts won with a score of 47 to 13, with the man of the match, Adnan Kabir, scoring 28 of the 47 runs for his team. It was very fast paced. Players of all talents played with great spirit. There was a barbecue and speeches at the conclusion.
I would like to thank the Eastern Beaches Local Area Command for their support of this wonderful annual event; the Bangladeshi community, who, like most people from the Subcontinent, are very passionate about their cricket and are great players; the umpire, Magfer Chowdhury; and the Eastern Suburbs PCYC. This is an annual highlight on the Kingsford Smith calendar and it is something I am very pleased to support. Happy Harmony Day, everyone, for tomorrow.
Kramer, Dr John
Mr HOGAN (Page) (13:37): Today I would like to acknowledge Dr John Kramer, a well-respected general practitioner from Woolgoolga. Dr Kramer started working in Woolgoolga in 1981, when the town's population was just 1,800, and he has never been tempted to leave. He was recently honoured at the 2016 New South Wales Rural Medical Service Awards for providing 35 years of service to the Woolgoolga community. In this time he recounts many great moments, a baby being delivered at 25 weeks at the surgery and many successful resuscitations. He has a genuine concern and care for his patients.
His passion for delivering quality health care to those who live in Woolgoolga is matched by his dedication to teaching and supervising GPs. He is heavily involved in teaching medical students. He has also spent a lot of time working with students with learning difficulties at Woolgoolga High School. I have to mention his other great passion: trains. His office is filled with much train memorabilia.
On behalf of the Woolgoolga community, I acknowledge and congratulate Dr Kramer for the significant contribution he has made to our community. I thank him for his 35 years of service.
Workplace Relations
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:39): I stand here today to give those opposite a bit of an IR lesson. They seem to choose to ignore the facts. When we talk about better off overall in collective bargaining we genuinely mean better off overall. We have members of the government saying in here and publicly, 'How dare McDonald's pay less on a Sunday than a small takeaway shop down the road.' What they fail to tell the Australian people is that McDonald's has a collective agreement that is better off overall against the award. There is a higher Monday-to-Friday rate. Workers at Macdonald's earn more than somebody working in the shop down the road because their agreement sits above the award and it does not fall below.
There is a clause within collective bargaining that says that any agreement that is reached must be better off overall. This is the same for Crown casino workers. There are not too many people in hospitality who earn more than a Crown casino worker. They have what is called a rolled up rate where what they get paid on Monday is what they also get paid on Sunday. But here is the catch. It is a much higher rate. The annual salary for someone working at Crown casino is $48,000 a year. There are not too many small businesses or the Prime Minister championing that every single person working in hospitality earn that kind of money. This government needs to back down on its scare campaign. (Time expired)
Belmont City Bowling Club
Mr IRONS (Swan) (13:40): Last week I had the opportunity to see first hand the real difference the Turnbull federal government is making to our local communities. As part of the last round of the Stronger Communities Program the federal government granted $12,000 to the Belmont City Bowling Club. With this funding they purchased a new computer and printer as well as retractable shade cloths for the bowlers to use while they are bowling. President Leo Horley met me at the club on Thursday to show me the new purchases. He told me that the new computer and printer are now allowing the club to print all their own newsletters and flyers and allow the club to take a giant step forward in their ability to communicate with Bowls WA and other clubs.
Their most impressive purchase was the retractable shade cloths installed on the banks of the greens. These cloths provide shade and shelter for bowlers while waiting for their turn. All my Western Australian colleagues understand how searing the WA sun can be. The shade cloths are making a huge difference to the bowlers.
I thank Leo and members of the Belmont City Bowling Club for making me feel so welcome. I wish you the best of luck in your next game of bowls under your new shade cloths and in dealing with your new computer and printer.
Western Australian State Election
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (13:41): I rise today to congratulate Premier Mark McGowan and the whole Western Australian Labor team on their remarkable electoral victory last Saturday, 11 March. It was a remarkable result that followed a campaign committed to talking to the people of Western Australia about their greatest concerns: jobs, health care, infrastructure and public transport. On election day I visited polling booths across Brand from Wandi, North Parmelia Primary School, Calista Primary School, my own schools—Safety Bay Primary School and Safety Bay Senior High—to Warnbro. Across the electorate voters were talking with the volunteers we had there or they had already made up their mind to boot out the old Colin Barnett Liberal government.
I want to thank the volunteers for their huge efforts. I also want to acknowledge the work of the WA Labor State Secretary, Patrick Gorman, and the Assistant State Secretary, Lenda Oshalem. Their hard work and commitment were unrelenting, and I thank them for it. I want to thank particularly the candidates who ran and did not win. It is a hard job but a very important one. I congratulate all the new Labor members of the WA parliament and note that there are more women in the Western Australian parliament than ever before.
With this election WA has taken a new turn. The victory is very significant but there are significant challenges facing the Western Australian community—a high unemployment rate, a particularly high youth unemployment rate and a massive budget deficit—but, if the hard work and commitment of the WA Labor campaign is anything to go by, I am sure Mark McGowan and his team will do a magnificent job.
Vocational Education and Training
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:43): Members from both sides are completing the work of the House Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training looking at innovation and creativity and making sure that the next generation have all the skills that they need to keep Australia the lucky country. We know that equipping our workforce with the skills needed is a challenging role. You cannot simply be asleep at the wheel. Retraining, upskilling and these kinds of things simply cannot be left to when a business closes. I commend TAFE Queensland and CSIRO for working closely together to try to make sure that young Queenslanders have those opportunities.
We are looking for creative and innovative young Australians. We need to know—and I went to Metro South TAFE last week and met with Liz Morgan and her students—that those students are being vested with the skills that they are going to need for the rapidly changing jobs of the next 10 years. They are not going to be completely changing. There will be new jobs requiring higher level skills, but in many cases it is just a nudge towards a better understanding of technology. That is precisely what TAFE is focused on—taking these students to a higher level of skills and qualifications, because we have to continually adapt in this fast-moving world. Other economies are doing it very successfully. Most importantly, we need connections between our training facilities and the small to medium enterprises that are doing the employing. We have to remind bosses to collaborate with training institutions and give our new students coming through every chance of a great, productive job.
Lindsay Electorate: Glenmore Park Learning Alliance
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (13:45): Glenmore Park Learning Alliance is in its second year and coordinates young people from our community who are school prefects and captains. It is a chance for the primary students to gather with the support of senior students and hear from a range of guest speakers and learn how their leadership can be enhanced and refined. I was proud to share my journey with them and was followed by local footy legend Mark Geyer, who talked about his own story.
At one point, I asked the kids what they were passionate about. We had sport, teaching and learning thrown in there, but one contribution to our conversation has stayed with me since that day. It was the soft little whisper of a young lady who spoke of her desire for girls to build up other girls and support one another to make the community a better place, which is a massive contribution when you are 11 and only in grade 6.
When I looked at the group, and when I attend school leadership inductions at schools across Lindsay and at my own kids' school, I am always reflective of the gender balance we place on school leadership. There is always one boy captain and one girl captain. I am yet to be at an induction where this is not the case. It makes me think that if we can manage to get the gender balance right in schools, why can't we get it right here?
And it reminded me of the shameful track record this government has in advancing women, and the smug comments about women holding up half the sky that the Prime Minister goes on with. If that is the case, Prime Minister, why are you not funding our women's legal services; why are you cutting penalty rates, which will have a greater impact on women; and why on earth would you walk away from funding women's shelters? These are all questions for the member for Wentworth and we will never, ever hear an answer, because he is too obsessed with Labor, Bill Shorten and the unions instead of forming a view in line with community expectations and not the right wing of his party.
Capricornia Electorate: Flying Foxes
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:46): I wish to raise an issue troubling the residents of Eungella at the peak of the Pioneer Valley. Last week, I witnessed first hand a large colony of flying foxes roosting in the national park directly adjacent to the school. When I say adjacent, I mean directly along the fence line, and overgrown trees were in the schoolyard. The bats are stripping trees in the national park. They are destroying local fruit trees and vegetation. I have never seen anything like it; they are crawling all over each other in droves. Parents have raised concerns, and the school is attempting to work with the Department of Education and the department of national parks. After a lot of buck-passing, the department of national parks have agreed to cut back the trees to the park side of the fence.
Now, I should not have to remind anyone, but bats fly. They are flying over the school. They are defecating on the school roof. The remote school relies on tank water, and the water comes from the roof. The taste permeates through the water. Parents are now refusing to let their kids drink the water and will have to pay from their own pockets to get the water tested. As the bats are nesting, parents have been advised that the state departments cannot do anything to ensure the safety of the children. So it appears the bats have more protection rights for their offspring than the parents do. I am extremely worried that we will not learn our lesson on this until a child gets sick from an infection or a bite. The only thing at risk of extinction here is common sense.
Buckley, Mr Tim
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:48): I rise to talk about a Territorian, Tim Buckley, and his son Ronan, who are competing in a very interesting marathon for a great cause. Tim is a long-time Territorian. He has lived in the territory for 26 years. Tim and his son Ronan are competing in a 42-kilometre marathon across the North Pole. They will be dealing with overcoming sub-zero temperatures in a hostile and unsympathetic environment. Now, if it gets under 20 degrees in Darwin, we are putting on jumpers. But luckily, Tim is no stranger to marathons in harsh, unforgiving environments. He previously competed in the Australian Outback Marathon, running across the heat of Central Australia, and he does remember the cold from when he spent time down in Antarctica for the Bureau of Meteorology.
Tim is going to pay all his own costs—his flights, insurances and accommodation—himself. But he will be fundraising for the Fred Hollows Foundation, with all money raised being donated straight to the foundation to support their cause to restore sight to people in the Territory and around the world. The marathon will take place on 9 April. Tim assures me that he and his son are more than ready for it.
If anyone would like to donate to Tim, you can do so, with that money going to the Fred Hollows Foundation. Full details will be available on my Facebook site this afternoon.
Berowra Electorate: Bendigo Bank
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:49): I rise today to highlight the success and incredible community spirit of the Galston and District Bank, a branch of the Bendigo Bank, in my electorate of Berowra. This week, the Galston branch of the Bendigo Bank celebrates 15 years of operation. Since opening in 2002, it has given over $1.6 million in dividends to community shareholders and donated over $2 million in scholarships to support local community groups. Of that $2 million, 47 per cent has gone to schools in our community to support the future of our children.
Some of the schools that have benefited from Bendigo Bank's generosity are Arcadia Public School, which received high-speed network cabling across the school; Galston Public School, where $15,000 went towards the installation of interactive whiteboards; Galston High School, which have received over $100,000 in support towards the construction of a new semi-commercial kitchen and sponsorship of the school's Young Endeavour program; and Clarke Road School, a school in Hornsby that educates children living with a disability—Galston branch dedicated $27,000 towards their Communication Passport Project and is working to secure the long-term financial future of that project.
I would like to thank the directors of the Galston branch for their incredible dedication to the community: Michael Beardsell, Robert Pullen, Ralph Steele, Dennis Phillips, Diana Paton, Sheena Daley, Gavin Koorey and Jackie Pakinga. And I would like to thank Gary Mangan, the branch manager, who was kind enough to show me around his branch earlier this month.
The Galston branch of the Bendigo Bank likes to say, 'We're a community bank and we're mighty proud to be one.' Well, I think it is safe to say that our community is mighty proud of them, too.
Oxley Electorate: Naval Association of Australia
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:51): Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting the Bundamba Naval Association to present them with a new red ensign flag and to accept the honour of becoming their patron. With 80 branches throughout the country, the Naval Association do tremendous work for out there-naval personnel, and the Bundamba branch is certainly no different. President Gary Rankin, Treasurer Fred Kirby and Honorary Secretary Mary Kirby are all outstanding ambassadors for the Naval Association and do a terrific job representing all of our ex-naval service men and women.
I am particularly proud to be the patron of the Naval Association, as my late father, Alan Dick, served in the Navy aboard HMAS Ararat during the Second World War. My father worked as a signalman on the upper deck on board the HMAS Araraton minesweeping missions in the newly captured Allied territory of Cape Gloucester, New Britain, during a difficult time of the war. I am now proud to play a small role with the Bundamba Naval Association, which is there to support men and women, just like my dad, who serve our great nation.
The naval association is not just a social club, although mateship is at the core of its ethos. Its slogan is: once Navy, always Navy. It does important work in providing advisory and counselling services, advocacy support for rehabilitation benefits, mentoring career advice to young members and, of course, assistance for Australian Navy Cadets. I look forward to supporting the Bundamba Naval Association as its new patron for many years to come.
Farrer Food Fair
Ms LEY (Farrer) (13:52): I rise today to highlight the magnificent food and wine that comes from the many growers and producers throughout my electorate of Farrer. I know my colleagues are keen to come to the very first Farrer Food Fair being staged here in Parliament House this week.
As many of you know already, Farrer is very much the home of the Murray-Darling Basin. From small to big businesses and exporters, we grow rice, grapes, cotton and cereals, through to dairy, wool, fat lambs and cattle. We also have important value adding in citrus, winegrapes, nuts and vegetables. Just to whet your appetite, on the way to the 'bush capital' this Wednesday are Sunrise Sushi, Riverina Rissoles, home-made pork pies and haggis. And we are showcasing Griffith, which produces one in every four glasses of Australian wine and a beautiful Murrumbidgee blood orange juice.
Just how important the basin is to the Australian economy was reflected in recent figures which showed that agricultural growth across the nation surged by over 27 per cent last year. Announced today by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was their decision to locate one of three new regional offices to my home town of Albury-Wodonga, one of many vibrant, innovative basin communities.
Once again, everyone is welcome to toast and taste our success this coming Wednesday in the Reps courtyard.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:54): This week, the Prime Minister faces a major test: does he stand on the side of bigots or on the side of multicultural Australia? If the government proposes any change to section 18C, no matter how innocuous it looks, it will mean one thing: a green light for racist hate speech in Australia.
In August last year, this is what the Prime Minister said about section 18C in a media interview:
… it is not going to create an extra job. It is not going to ensure that your listeners are going to get to work or get to school, or get around their business sooner. It’s not going to build an extra road.
Now, the Prime Minister has given in to his right-wing masters, and changes are being considered. It is particularly galling that the government wants to promote racist hate speech in the same week as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Make no mistake, the debate about section 18C has nothing to do with free speech. The government only argues for free speech when it suits them. Just ask the minister for immigration. He thinks that there should be free speech for racists but not for CEOs who are advocating for marriage equality. The Prime Minister must rule out right now any weakening of Australia's protection against racist hate speech.
Mackellar Electorate: Be Centre
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:55): I recently had the pleasure of visiting a unique play therapy centre in my electorate. The Be Centre is the only registered charity in Australia offering programs for children aged three to 13 years and their families dedicated to earlier trauma intervention to restore trust, build self-confidence and life skills. Highly experienced and dedicated mental health professionals help children make sense of situations and events, assisting them to cope with issues of trauma, bullying, grief, anger, anxiety, addiction and autism disorders in a safe, confidential and caring environment.
Play therapy is unique in its self-guided, child-focussed, gentle and effective nature. The children choose how they spend their time with a therapist, be it in sand play, puppetry, art dance, clay or creative visualisation. I witnessed firsthand how the eight highly trained counsellors, psychologists and social workers work side-by-side with 20 volunteers who give their time so generously to change children's lives. Through play therapy, the Be Centre provides hope, healing and empowerment for children with emotional, social or behavioural issues, or to children who have experienced trauma, to be the best that they can be.
Moreton Electorate: Holland Park Mosque
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (13:57): Yesterday, I was proud to help raise the Australian, Queensland and Aboriginal flags as part of a ceremony recognising the history of the Holland Park Mosque, Australia's oldest continuing mosque with a history stretching back to 1908. Since that time, the Holland Park Mosque and everyone associated with it have contributed greatly to Queensland's significant multicultural and multifaith history. This history includes some of Queensland's oldest Muslim families—the Rane, Goss, Ramah, Deen, Khan and Howsan families to name only a few. The ceremony recognised many of these families and their commitment to our community.
Of particular note was the unveiling of a plaque dedicated to the late Imam Abdul Raheem Rane, who was the first appointed imam on the east coast of Australia. For 40 years, Imam Rane loyally served his community as an unpaid imam and social worker. He was influential in setting up and supporting other Islamic societies across Queensland. The plaque was presented to Imam Rane's family, including his wife Joyce—nee Christensen—who, like Imam Rane, has a long history of service to the Islamic community.
I would like to thank everyone in the Islamic society of Holland Park for inviting me to participate in the ceremony, particularly Janeth Deen, a recent recipient of a Moreton Australia Day award, and all those involved for organising the wonderful event. I look forward to continuing to work with people of the Holland Park Mosque, who are tireless in their leadership and work throughout our community. They will be around long after certain racist Queensland senators are a long-forgotten, historical blip. (Time expired)
Hughes Electorate: Roads
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:58): I would like to acknowledge the very good work of the New South Wales state government in upgrading local roads in my electorate of Hughes. Firstly, we have had the upgrade of the Alfords Point bridge. The northern approach was upgraded in 2011 and the southern approach is currently being fully upgraded. The road is being widened to three lanes and is being divided down the middle, which will add a lot more safety to that road.
But there is still much more work to do in our electorate, especially on Heathcote Road. This was a road constructed back during World War II. It was constructed between the Holsworthy Army Barracks and the port down at Wollongong. We have since recently upgrades to Deadmans Creek bridge, which has been most important. Currently, there are upgrades of Woronora bridge, with new warning signs and a new speed camera going in there. We would like to see, eventually, that entire road be upgraded. In the last few years, between 2011 and 2015, there have been 110 crashes along that road, with, sadly, two fatalities. Further, the F6 extension, from the south coast, is also badly overdue, and needs work to commence.
But I would like, overall, to congratulate the New South Wales state government. They are doing a good job in the local area on roads. As I said, there is still much more work for them to do.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will be absent from the House for the next two sitting weeks. The minister is unable to fly, given she is in the final weeks of her pregnancy, so she will undertake her ministerial duties from Melbourne, and the Treasurer will answer questions on her behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Workplace Relations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Andrew lives in Gawler in South Australia. He is here in the gallery today. Andrew works at Spotlight on a Sunday to pay his way through university. Andrew says that he will lose around $1,000 per year because of the cuts to penalty rates, cuts which the Prime Minister has supported. Can the Prime Minister tell Andrew why he has to take a pay cut?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, if Andrew had been working at Kentucky Fried Chicken, KFC, he would be earning $21.19 an hour instead, and he would be earning that amount because of a union agreement. The reality is that the AWU and the unions the honourable members opposite represent have again and again traded away penalty rates in one EBA after another.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo.
Mr TURNBULL: Not only have they traded them away, they traded them away in circumstances where they have received money from the employers concerned.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: We might well ask: what about the great achievement of the Australian Workers' Union with Clean Event? Only today the member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General, said that the Labor Party were proud of every deal the Leader of the Opposition had negotiated. They are bursting with pride.
Mr Shorten: A point of order, on relevance. Andrew has travelled from Adelaide; he is here in the gallery—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I am not going to revisit everything I said last week about points of order. I asked the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat three times. We are getting into unprecedented territory. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: When it comes to penalty rates, imagine if Andrew had been working for Clean Event. Imagine if he had been getting, thanks to the great advocacy of the Leader of the Opposition—this champion of the working class, this hero of the people—$18 an hour instead of $50 under the award. But there was something else: payments to the union, not disclosed. The member for Isaacs says that they are all proud of the Leader of the Opposition's track record as a union—
Mr Dreyfus: You bet we are.
Mr TURNBULL: 'You bet we are', he says. If they are so proud, why did they not share those deals with the members? Why were the payments kept secret? If it was such a great deal, why not tell everybody? Why did it have to be kept secret? One deal after another, one payment after another, and one thing in common: it took a royal commission and two years to find out about them, just like the donation to his election campaign, again, from Unibilt, a company that his union had been engaged in negotiations with—no connection there, I am sure; just a coincidence! The Leader of the Opposition has been selling workers down the river for years, trading away penalty rates for years, taking backhanders for years, and we are going to stop it.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Snowdon: You are a grub!
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari! Members on both sides will cease interjecting.
Mr Bowen: A point of order: the Prime Minister just engaged in a grossly improper reflection on a member, and he must withdraw.
The SPEAKER: I heard what the Prime Minister was saying towards the end of his answer. Reflecting on that, there have been many occasions, and I refer members to Practice—and I am happy to spend a lot of time on this, if they want to—where the characterisation is not of a specific nature in the way the member for McMahon is talking. If we want to have a robust question time, which I think the opposition wants to more often than the government, I think this really does pass into the territory of question time, I have to say. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on the point of order.
Mr Burke: I did not jump up at the time, but I have just had it explained to me exactly what was said. Standing order 90 states:
… all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly.
I do not see how that particular claim falls short of that.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I will deal with this matter, and members on both sides may not like it. There were some contributions in the 90-second statements where I could have very easily sat the member for Moreton down at the end of his speech. If we are going to take a literal approach, I will be taking a literal approach. I do not believe the Prime Minister suggested that the Leader of the Opposition was literally taking a 'backhander', which I think is the term you are objecting to. I do not think the Prime Minister was saying that the Leader of the Opposition personally benefited—I don't. I believe it was a—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members will not interject—the member for Lingiari has already been mentioned! It was a political characterisation. If you want me to go to the aspects of Practice, I can give you many examples where that has been allowed. If members want a literal interpretation of the standing orders I will be ruling questions out of order left, right and centre. I am watching the language very carefully. I am not going to intervene at this point and I am going to call the next question.
Workplace Relations
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his announcement today that the government will move to ban and criminalise corrupting benefits to unions, in line with the Heydon royal commission. How will these measures increase transparency and protect workers, including in my electorate of Banks?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:08): For years, as the Heydon royal commission demonstrated, Australia's big unions have been selling their members out by trading away members' entitlements in industrial agreements, and, at the same time, taking money from employers, which they did not disclose to their members and which had no bona fide basis whatsoever. The evidence is extensive. We have heard about the Clean Event payment, which I spoke about a moment ago, where penalty rates for some of Australia's lowest-paid workers were traded away in return for cash payments to the union, and the royal commission's conclusion was that the only beneficiaries of that deal were the AWU and Clean Event. Who lost out? The members. We are standing up for the members, so what we are doing is introducing on legislation on Wednesday that will criminalise secret payments between employers and unions that could have a corrupting influence. In addition, what we also will do is criminalise payments between employers and unions that do not have a legitimate basis, like so many of the payments exposed in the Heydon royal commission.
What about the payment by ACI Operations to the AWU in Victoria? They paid them around $500,000 while workers were laid off at the Spotswood glass manufacturing plant. The AWU invoiced the payments as 'paid education leave'. But what were the payments used for? To offset a loan to renovate the union's Victorian office, and four other general costs. That is the finding of the royal commission. There are so many others like that. If the member for Isaacs and indeed the Leader of the Opposition himself are proud of their record in representing workers, why weren't the workers told? Why were so many of these payments hidden? Why were they concealed from the members whom they claim to represent?
The third part of the bill that will be introduced on Wednesday will require both employers and the union to make public, to disclose, any payments that flow from the employer to the union at the time of an enterprise agreement. In the Heydon royal commission we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. There is a culture of deceit, a culture of selling out the workers, a culture of trading away workers' rights in return for membership lists and in return for cash, and we are going to put a stop to it with the legislation we are introducing in the House this week.
Workplace Relations
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. Kerry works as a pharmacy assistant in South Australia, and she is here in the gallery today. Kerry says that the decision to cut penalty rates will cost her around $1½ thousand a year from an annual wage of just $34,000. The Prime Minister's support for cutting penalty rates will mean that Kerry will struggle to pay her bills. Why does the Prime Minister think that Kerry deserves a pay cut?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:11): Kerry would know, I am sure, that the member for Sydney and all of her colleagues on the Labor benches have for years said that they will support the Fair Work Commission and its decisions—again and again. You could fill a library with the quotations from Labor figures endorsing the Fair Work Commission.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta!
Mr TURNBULL: In February last year the member for Gorton, who was very vocal at the door this morning I see, dripping with sanctimony, drowning in hypocrisy, said, 'Labor believes the Fair Work Commission is the appropriate to consider these matters and it should be left alone by the Liberals to do just that—conduct its business as the independent umpire.' Labor used to stand by the independent umpire. Labor used to defend their decisions. The Fair Work Commission is standing up for small business. Labor should do so too. Labor knew exactly what that inquiry was about. The Leader of the Opposition set it up, he wrote the terms of reference and he said again and again he would support its decision. He knew exactly what it was about and so did the member for Gorton. Every member of that commission was hand-picked by the Labor Party and now they want to cast it aside. The inconsistency and the hypocrisy of the Labor Party is what they should be explaining to Kerry and thousands of other Australians.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen! The member for Gilmore has the call.
Energy
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (14:13): Will the Prime Minister advise the House how the government's Snowy Mountains Scheme 2.0 will make renewables reliable and help stabilise Australia's electricity supply for households and businesses, including all those in Gilmore?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:13): I thank the honourable member for her question. The Snowy Mountains Scheme was one of the engineering marvels of the world.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton!
Mr TURNBULL: It was the work of the generation that fought the Second World War, came back home, brought thousands of workers from war-torn Europe, and bonded together in creating this most extraordinary work that supports irrigation and hydroelectricity. Now more than ever we need that vision, we need that leadership, and my government is providing the leadership to complete the Snowy Mountains scheme. Our plan, which we are supporting—the Snowy Mountains plan for expansion—will increase the capacity of the Snowy Mountains scheme by 50 per cent. The plan has been fully designed, complete—all the engineering work done—and it has sat there for nearly 30 years neglected. All that was missing was leadership and money, and my government has both, and we are committed to doing this, because we know that Australia needs reliable and affordable energy and we know how that has been put at risk by the reckless policies of the Labor Party.
Imagine the recklessness of the Labor government in South Australia—of course, fully supported by their federal counterparts. They invested in a massive amount of wind energy which on any given day can supply 100 per cent or more of the state's demand or, in a few hours, when the wind drops, nothing at all. South Australia was made hostage by its closure of base load power and its lack of any storage to a long extension cord to the Latrobe Valley—where, of course, another Labor Party proceeded to allow the closure of Hazelwood, which supplies 22 per cent of that state's electricity and its base load power. The sheer recklessness of the Labor Party in energy is extraordinary.
And then we see the crisis in gas. We have taken the lead there, brought in the gas producers on the east coast and got their commitment to make gas available to the domestic market. But there is no thanks for the Labor Party. This is what Labor did: closed down base load power and refused to invest in storage, leaving gas as the only backup source, but then banned exploration and development in Victoria so that gas prices went through the roof. It is as though the Labor Party sat down and decided deliberately how to wreck Australia's energy market. Well, whether they did it mindlessly or deliberately, they were well on the way to achieving it and we, again, are solving that problem as well.
Workplace Relations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that just last week the now former Western Australian minister Joe Francis said on 6PR radio: 'Penalty rates: I know people who did not vote for us at a state level because of that.' Prime Minister, why won't you use your power to stop the pay of almost 700,000 workers from being cut?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:17): The Fair Work Commission, established by the Labor Party, is the independent umpire which the honourable member opposite pledged to support. He gave an undertaking to support it. And he has broken that. He has thrown that away. It is in a parallel universe. The only time he can be relied upon to stick to his word is when it is coincidentally in his own interest at the time. He has no regard for the truth and no regard for accuracy, abandoning his commitments again and again.
The fact is this: in terms of penalty rates, when the Leader of the Opposition had the power to determine penalty rates, when he was representing the workers in the Australian Workers' Union, what did he do? He sold them out for a bag of gold.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:18): I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon from the Parliament of Tasmania Minister Matthew Groom, the member for Denison. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Regional Australia
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, last week you announced the Regional Australia Ministerial Taskforce. This is a welcome innovation and I look forward to a coherent regional policy that ensures that we have the right policies delivered for all Australians. But, as we have discussed, the opportunities for rural and regional Australia are many and the needs are great, and there is strong interest in regional Australia in the terms of reference for the task force, time lines, budgets, community engagement processes and the relationship between the task force and the budget process. Prime Minister, will you commit to delivering a full white paper process that sets out a vision for regional Australia with strategies that enable us to reach our full potential?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:19): I thank the honourable member for her question. She is right: we have often discussed the priorities in regional Australia. And we thank her for her suggestions and her very deep experience and expertise in the field of regional development over many years, long before she came into parliament.
It is vitally important that economic opportunity and security is enjoyed by every part of Australia. And it is vitally important that the economic growth and the jobs we are delivering are enjoyed right across Australia. That is why we have set up the task force. It is a key priority of my government to ensure that every part of Australia benefits from the economic growth we are seeing. We know that some regions are doing it extremely well—are prospering and are seeing strong growth. Others are not doing so well, very often because of the transition from the mining construction boom to more diversified growth. It is a complex mesh of opportunities and challenges, as the honourable member knows very well. So we are focusing on that issue. We recognise across the board that we need to provide support, and I will give some examples.
Our $30 million grant to the Portland aluminium smelter, for example, secured the jobs of 700 workers along with the 2,000 people in the region whose livelihoods depend on it. As honourable members know, we provided a $49 million loan to Arrium to ensure and support the continuance of the steelmaking operations there in Whyalla. We have brought forward the upgrade of 1,200 kilometres of rail line between Adelaide and Tarcoola using steel from Arrium. And our regional jobs and investment package is helping regions to diversify their economies and grow sustainable employment, including $20 million in the Goulburn Valley. We have a $50 billion infrastructure program, including record commitments to the Bruce and Pacific highways. We are committed to the inland rail. We have also committed towards $10 million in the honourable member's electorate for road upgrades. And, as the honourable member is well aware, her electorate has done very well in terms of mobile phone black spots and, indeed, the rollout of the NBN.
But she is not alone. Right across Australia, we are investing in telecommunications infrastructure to ensure that the tyranny of distance is overcome.
The SPEAKER: The member for Indi on a point of order?
Ms McGowan: I was just asking the Prime Minister if he would answer my question about a white paper.
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Ms McGowan: It is a point of order about relevance to the question that was asked about a white paper.
The SPEAKER: The member for Indi will resume her seat. The difficulty with 30-second questions, let alone 45-second questions, is: there was a lot of ground covered. The Prime Minister is in order. He has concluded his answer.
Infrastructure
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (14:22): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. What action is the government taking to improve energy and water security for hardworking Australian farmers and families in regional communities?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:23): I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member would know better than most the sort of infrastructure investments that the Commonwealth has been making. In fact, one of the first conversations I had with the honourable member before his election was about the in excess of $100 million being invested in the Sunraysia Modernisation Project. When you go to Mildura now, you see that $100 million in the better return for those people: the booming almond industry; the booming grape industry. There is real money coming back into the town—such a prosperous town.
That is a real example of how we have turned around the agricultural economy and of how you have seen in the last 12 months a 23.7 per cent increase in agriculture. In fact, no other sector of the economy added more to our economy than agriculture—not iron ore; not coal; nothing added more than agriculture. And that is a great example of good management and good government.
We have also seen $20 million for the South West Loddon Pipeline from the Mallee to the Murray. That is another substantial piece of investment that has been asked for for so long, and now we are actually delivering on it.
But what we have seen from this government goes right back to when the Prime Minister was the water minister, in his first iteration in politics: $13 billion has been invested in the modernisation of the Murray-Darling Basin and in making sure it is environmentally sustainable. This is real investment—massive investment.
We have also seen that we continue to build on that. Our belief in water infrastructure continues on, with $2.5 billion being made available for water infrastructure such dams. We have already put money on the table for Dungowan Dam and for Rookwood Weir. We have got feasibility studies going forward. We are making sure that the Macalister Irrigation District in the member for Gippsland's seat is upgraded. We continue to put real investment here. And this sort of investment also goes to research and development, so that we now have a 60 per cent increase in water use efficiency in rice and also a 40 per cent increase in water use efficiency in the last decade in cotton.
But this nation continues and this side of the chamber continues to go forward with water infrastructure projects, and none better than what the Prime Minister has suggested with pumped hydro for the Snowy Mountains. The largest investment in the Snowy Mountains will happen, as has been put forward by this side, by the government.
And you can say—because I heard them say—that that was their side; it was not Menzies. But it does not really matter, that is so far in the past.
What I can tell you about the Labor Party's side is this: there is only one side that wants to take money out of the dams project, and that is the Labor Party. They do not believe in water infrastructure. They do not have a vision for this nation. They have no vision for this nation. Where is the vision for this nation? There is no vision for this nation because it is a Labor Party policy to rip the guts out of our dams projects. And never once have they had the courage to come to the dispatch box—well, maybe they are going to do it now—and say that they adore our vision for this nation with the Snowy Mountains— (Time expired)
Infrastructure
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (14:26): My question is to the Prime Minister. Now that the results of the Western Australian election are so clear, will the Prime Minister listen to Western Australians, respect the mandate of Mark McGowan and finally dump your dud Perth Freight Link project and instead invest in the public transport METRONET project that Perth urgently needs, or does the Prime Minister plan to punish Western Australia like he did Victoria, for having the temerity to vote Labor, by withholding $1.2 billion in federal infrastructure funding? (Time expired)
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:26): The honourable member's recollection of recent political events is a bit faulty. The Victorian government actually had the money before the election, and the Victorian Labor government chose not to build the East West Link. They kept the money they had been given for the East West Link and, by agreement, it is being applied to other infrastructure projects across the state. So his recollection on Victoria is incorrect.
As far as Western Australia is concerned, it is a matter for the Western Australian government whether it wants to continue with the Perth Freight Link project, which is a very high priority project of Infrastructure Australia. If they are not going to build it then the money is obviously not required. As far as the METRONET project is concerned, we look forward to an application and will examine it on its merits, as I have advised the new premier.
Energy
Mr PASIN (Barker) (14:28): My question is to the minister for the environment. Minister, I ask this question when only moments ago the spot price for electricity in South Australia was approaching 50 times the cost of electricity in Victoria. I ask the minister about a retail business in my electorate in Mount Gambier. This business has seen an increase in the cost of its electricity bill for one month alone of $18,000. Minister, can you update the House on what action the government is taking to ensure Australians have access to affordable and reliable power? (Time expired)
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:28): I thank the member for Barker for his question and acknowledge his deep concern for the rising electricity prices for those in his electorate, including the irrigators, the almond growers, the sawmill at Glencoe and, indeed, the fast food operators at Naracoorte and Mount Gambier who have seen their electricity prices each go up by more than $90,000 over the last year. When those opposite talk about jobs, spare a thought for those young people, or those parents coming back into the workforce after having kids, who will be denied a job because those businesses cannot afford to pay their own electricity bills.
That is why the Prime Minister is focused on getting stability and security in our electricity system. That is why he called in the LNG suppliers last week and got a major commitment from them to meet the future shortfalls in the domestic gas market. That is why the Snowy Hydro scheme is so important. That is why I was in South Australia for a 1,000 households and businesses battery project, where we, not the state government, partnered with AGL to provide energy security.
We have found out that the Premier of South Australia has blamed for the troubles in South Australia privatisation that occurred more than a decade ago. He has blamed the Energy Market Operator. He has blamed the federal government. Today, he has gone out and said The Australian newspaper has 'a jihad against renewables'. In a press conference today, the Premier of South Australia was asked about the warning back in 2009 that it was damaging to go above 20 per cent renewables. The question to the Premier was: 'You were warned that you were going beyond 20 per cent for renewables and that was going to destabilise the grid. What do you say, Premier of South Australia?' He said, 'The evidence is that it hasn't.' The Premier of South Australia has said about his energy system that it is good for business, it is good for jobs and it is good for affordability and reliability. Denial is not just a river in Egypt!
Then the member for Port Adelaide says what we had is an electricity—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. I sense we are entering dangerous territory.
Mr Burke: Under standing order 100 and the requirement for authentication, we heard in the question about it being, I think, 50 times. Given the spot price is nowhere near 50 times right at this moment, could he either table his calculator or table the document that he was basing it on?
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. As the Manager of Opposition Business knows, there is no point of order. He is welcome to ask a question on any previous questions, though. The Minister for the Environment and Energy.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The NEM pocket app is showing South Australia at $10,579 a megawatt hour. The member for Port Adelaide has belittled the troubles of his own state, calling it a 'hiccup', and when asked by David Speers about South Australia he said, 'There always had to be a jurisdiction that led the way.' The member for Port Adelaide thinks that leading the way to lower jobs, less investment, higher prices and less stability is the way to go. We on this side of the House want more energy security and affordability. (Time expired)
Pauline Hanson's One Nation
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to previous answers where he has defended his industry minister describing One Nation as more sophisticated. Since parliament last sat, we have had a clear result in WA. During the campaign, One Nation praised Vladimir Putin and made irresponsible comments about vaccination and divisive comments about race and religion. Does the Prime Minister stand by his previous answers and will the Prime Minister now direct every Liberal Party division to put One Nation last on every single ticket across the nation, the same way John Howard did?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, I am trying to address the House.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: When members are ready, I will rule on part of the question. Members well know and the Manager of Opposition Business well knows that the Prime Minister can only be questioned about matters for which he has responsibility in the House. He is certainly able to question the Prime Minister on his previous answers, and that was the bulk of the question, but the very last part of that question—asking the Prime Minister to direct certain divisions—is something which the Prime Minister is not responsible for in this House, and the Prime Minister can ignore it.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:34): I refer the honourable member to my remarks of a week or so ago, when I emphasised strongly and repeatedly that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children put their own children's health and the health of everybody else's children at risk. We have increased the pressure on this issue considerably. We have written to every state and every territory and sought their support to ensure that we go further than simply saying, 'no jab, no pay'—which has been a very successful policy and has resulted in an additional 200,000 children being vaccinated.
Ms Catherine King: Did you write to Pauline and ask her to stop saying it?
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat!
Mr TURNBULL: We called on the states and territories to ensure that children who are not vaccinated without a medical exemption will not be admitted to child care or preschool, and so we add 'no jab, no play' to 'no jab, no pay'. This is a critically important public health issue. I know that honourable members opposite support the government on this. I trust they do, I am sure they do, and I think we need to have an absolutely united front on that. I was utterly unequivocal on that point.
Ms Catherine King: So write to One Nation and tell them not to do it!
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: In respect of the other remarks the honourable member referred to in terms of Vladimir Putin, I reminded Australians of President Putin's conduct around and association with the shooting down of MH17 and the invasion and occupation of a neighbouring country and pointed out that he is no subject for admiration. Finally, on the remarks about Muslims, I made it very clear, as I do every day, that we are the most successful multicultural society in the world, and the foundation of that is mutual respect.
Energy
Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:36): My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security. Will the minister inform the House what the expansion of the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme would mean for our national security?
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) (14:36): I thank the member for Page for his question and acknowledge his ongoing interest in national security, including the vital Air Force training range at Evans Head, which contributes to training for our overseas operations. He knows energy security is vital to our national security.
As the House is aware, on 10 February the Department of Defence was asked by ActewAGL and the New South Wales department of environment to assist with load shedding. Having parts of the Department of Defence put onto generators is a rare and significant event. Defence has generators for a reason—as a backup for our critical systems—but we should not have to use them to help keep the lights on. As I have said before, the Australian Signals Directorate data centre was switched over to generator power on 10 and 11 February. In addition, a generator was used as an alternative power source at Garden Island, Sydney, on 10 February, and a generator was used as an alternative power source at the Randwick Barracks on 10 February.
The Turnbull government is the first government to take cybersecurity seriously. It has also fully funded the defence white paper. The government knows that these investments need to be backed by investments to secure our energy supply. That is why the Turnbull government has announced an electricity game changer: the Snowy Mountains scheme mark 2. An expansion of the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme will mean that our energy grid will have greater stability. We will increase the generation of the Snowy hydro scheme by 50 per cent, adding 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy to the national electricity market—enough to power half a million Australian homes. This will be the largest facility of its kind in the southern hemisphere. You cannot have an aspiration, a target, an aim or a goal when it comes to energy security. You cannot have an aspiration, a target, an aim or a goal when it comes to national security. This is why we have announced the Snowy Mountains scheme mark 2. The Leader of the Opposition should stop carping about it, stop his negativity, stop his approach—which is just saying, 'no, no, no'—and get on board and support it.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the Prime Minister's colleagues are seeking to water down protections against race hate speech. Will the Prime Minister rule out making changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act? If not, what exactly does the government want people to be able to say that they are not allowed to say now?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The member for Newcastle is now warned.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:40): It took 34 minutes for the Leader of the Opposition to lose interest in penalty rates as a subject. He has jumped around a bit. Now he is wandering through the thicket of policy issues. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has written a very good report on the subject of the Racial Discrimination Act, and the government is considering its recommendations.
G20 Finance Ministers' and Central Bank Governors' Meeting
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (14:40): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on key outcomes of the G20 finance ministers' and central bank governors' meeting in Germany? How will continued cooperation on the global economy allow hardworking Australian businesses and workers both in Brisbane and around Australia to grow and earn more?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:41): I thank the member for Brisbane for his question and his keen interest in these issues—not only about the global economy but about the strengthening of the Australian economy. The good news to report on the global economy is that it is in a stronger position today than it was a year ago. The outlook for the global economy is actually stronger today than it was a year ago as well. Things are better. That is the report from the many economies I spoke with on the weekend, and things are expected to get better. This is very good news—whether you are talking about what is happening in Europe, in the Netherlands, in Spain in particular or in the United Kingdom, or whether you are talking about what is happening in the United States or even Japan. We are also seeing continued stability coming out of China. All of this is good news, and it is good news for Australians. For many years—since the GFC and in recent times—much of the news when you went to these talks and assemblies was quite bleak. It is important that we understand the opportunity that we as an economy have to take advantage of this improving situation globally. We cannot be complacent about it. We cannot be complacent about growth. We cannot be complacent about the jobs that depend on growth. We cannot be complacent about the incomes and the wage increases that come as a result of that growth and, indeed, the lift in living standards that is dependent upon that growth.
Australia is incredibly well placed to take advantage of the improving situation globally. This is a government that has delivered on the issue of trade. Trade was a key recognition in the outcomes of the meetings on the weekend—the contribution of trade to prosperous economies around the world. This government has delivered on the trade front, whether it is with China—which was opposed by those opposite—whether it is with Japan or whether it is with Korea. Indeed, the minister for trade continues to work on the important agreements with Indonesia, the European Union and the United Kingdom. The Australian economy is well placed because of our strength. We have the second-highest GDP of any country in the G20.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: I am reminded by the shadow Treasurer, rightly, that it is this government that is actually working on the free trade agreement with India. I am reminded of that. Mr Speaker, I wish Labor were as enthusiastic in supporting the government on free trade and on issues of trade today as they were in showing reluctance to do so in the past. But it is not only that. This is a government that is investing in infrastructure. You have heard from the Prime Minister and other ministers about the groundbreaking investments—whether it is Snowy 2 or whether it is a pumped hydro facility in Cultana in South Australia. These are the investments that deliver energy affordability to Australian businesses to ensure that they can plan for their future with confidence and take the opportunities that are there in this improving global situation and environment.
Those opposite, the Labor Party, stand against so many of these initiatives. (Time expired)
Budget
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (14:44): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out making any cuts to pensioners in this year's budget?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:44): I thank the honourable member for her question. The budget is less than two months away. I can assure Australians, and I assure honourable members, there will be no change to the current rules that provide aged pensioners on the taper rate with a minimum payment per fortnight. The proposal that was referred to and then picked up by the opposition leader over the weekend was no more than a suggestion put forward by a department and immediately rejected by the government. There is no place for that proposal in the budget, and I can give the honourable member complete assurance on that point.
Global Security
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on action that the government is taking with our international allies to ensure the security of Australians at home and abroad?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:45): I thank the member for Leichardt for his question and note his deep concern about security issues. Tomorrow I will travel to Washington to attend a meeting of foreign ministers and foreign secretaries for the global coalition in the fight against ISIS. This is hosted by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and it will be the first meeting of the full coalition—now 68 members—since December 2014. I will later attend a meeting of foreign ministers and foreign secretaries of the smaller group within the coalition, who are making a more significant contribution to the international effort to defeat ISIS.
In particular, Australia is making a significant contribution in a number of ways, because we are at a pivotal point in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. First, we are making a military contribution. We are engaged in air strikes over Syria. We are also providing training and support to the Iraqi security forces, the police and the army in Iraq. We are also working to stop the flow of foreign terrorist fighters in and out of Syria and Iraq and we are working to stop the flow of financing to the terrorist groups. We are also mindful of the humanitarian disaster in Syria and also in Iraq and, since 2011, Australia has contributed almost $500 million to support not only those who are directly affected by the conflict but also the countries around Syria and Iraq who are seeking to host refugees in the region, so that when the conflict is over they can return home.
The Australian government is deeply concerned about the links between ISIS in Syria and Iraq and South-East Asia. Last week I visited Indonesia and met with foreign minister Retno Marsudi. We discussed their concerns, shared by Australia, about an estimated 500 foreign terrorist fighters from Indonesia who may well be returning to our part of the world when the conflict is over. I also travelled to Malaysia and met with foreign minister Anifah Aman, and we are working closely with Malaysia to share intelligence on returning foreign terrorist fighters. Also, last week in the Philippines I met with foreign minister Enrique Manalo. The Philippines are concerned about the southern Philippines region, Mindanao, in particular, because there are Islamic jihadist groups there, including the Abu Sayyaf group, which has self-declared its connection to ISIS. We have provided a package of support for the Philippines so that they can continue to counter terrorism, share intelligence and stop the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. Australia will do all it can to keep our people safe from terrorism.
Housing Affordability
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:48): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance. Can the minister confirm that the Minister for Finance said:
We went to the last election promising no increases in taxes on investment—specifically, no reduction in the capital gains tax discount, no changes to negative gearing—we stick to our commitments.
Does this reflect the position of the government? Is the budget being drawn up according to the principles of the finance minister?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:49): As the Prime Minister has noted, the budget will be in less than two months, and what this government has always stood for is this: we understand that increasing taxes does not build houses. You have to build more houses in this country if you are interested in having a housing affordability policy. The member opposite has been asking about capital gains tax, he has been asking about negative gearing, as if he thinks that if you change arrangements to either of these measures—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned. I want to make sure she has heard that she has been warned. This is needless interjection. It is Monday—seriously—and it is question eight.
Mr MORRISON: At the last election we made it very clear that the reckless policy that was put forward by those opposite on capital gains tax and negative gearing would have presented a very real threat to the stability of Australia's housing market. Since that time, the risks continue to present themselves, absolutely, in relation to the policies that those opposite advocate when it comes to the housing sector. The Labor Party do not have a housing affordability policy. What they have is a policy to increase taxes and that is all—to take the money and put it in their big bag of cash, because they cannot bring themselves to control spending. If those opposite actually thought that revenue raised on that side of the ledger should be invested in improving social housing or doing something like that, then perhaps they would have a housing affordability policy. But they do not have a housing affordability policy. They have no plans to increase the supply of housing in this country, which is the key issue when it comes to addressing housing affordability. All the shadow Treasurer has is some promise to cut negative gearing access to those who are involved in doing this for their own futures whether they be police officers, nurses, teachers or the others who are simply saving for their future. What he wants to do is rip that offer of opportunity away from them, and he wants to do it—bizarrely—in a way that he thinks is trying to help them. All the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition have when it comes to housing affordability is a cruel hoax. It is a cruel hoax, and he is trying to tell the people of Australia, 'If I put up your taxes, you'll be able to afford your houses.' It is a lie.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, that last comment should be withdrawn.
The SPEAKER: I ask the Treasurer to withdraw his very last comment.
Mr MORRISON: I withdraw.
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Can he outline how the government's commitment to industrial relations reform will help protect employees' pay and conditions by putting an end to the corrupting benefits paid by businesses to unions? Secondly, can he outline why it is important that the union movement be run honestly on behalf of all hardworking Australians?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:52): I thank the Father of the House, the member for Menzies, for his question. He has had a career-long interest in industrial relations reform, and of course the government's latest announcements today about corrupting benefits are the next instalment in this government's commitment to bringing about honest workplaces that put the interests of the workers first, not the interests of the union bosses.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned.
Mr PYNE: The Heydon royal commission identified a systematic shaking down of Australian businesses by the unions in favour of the unions and at the expense of the workers. Commissioner Heydon called them corrupting benefits, and the government have announced today that we will take action not only to ban those corrupting benefits but also to criminalise the activity and put in prison the union leaders, and the bosses if necessary, who engage in corrupting benefits.
What would be a good example of a corrupting benefit? For those of us who have been in the parliament for a little while, the very obvious one is when Bruce Wilson, as head of the AWU, took money from the unions and did house renovations on properties in Melbourne. He was using money, given by businesses to the union, to renovate Julia Gillard's then home in Melbourne. But there are lots of other good examples of corrupting benefits. For example, Thiess John Holland paid the AWU in Victoria $300,000 when they built the EastLink freeway. They issued false invoices on the AWU to disguise the payments as training, back strain research, AWU magazine advertisements, forum tickets and conference sponsorships. As the royal commission found, there was no evidence of any of those things actually being provided; nor were these payments ever disclosed to the members of the AWU, who the unions were supposed to represent. The question for the Leader of the Opposition is: does he condone such activity at that time by Thiess John Holland and the AWU—or, for example, by Winslow Constructors, who paid AWU Victoria $200,000 and provided the union with lists of employees' names who were then joined up to the union without their knowledge for one purpose: to expand the power of the AWU in the Labor Party in Victoria for the benefit of the AWU union leaders? Again, does the Leader of the Opposition condone that activity of the AWU—or that of Chiquita Mushrooms, who paid $24,000 to casualise the mushroom-picking workforce? It was invoiced as paid education leave but never delivered. The legislation that we will introduce will wipe out these corrupting benefits. Labor needs to get on board and prove that they put workers ahead of union bosses.
Housing Affordability
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:55): My question is to the Treasurer. Today the Treasurer said in relation to the housing market:
I had discussions with the Council of Financial Regulators and we've been looking at these issues on the investor side, on the demand side …
Has the Council of Financial Regulators advised the Treasurer, formally or informally, that it has concerns about proposals to allow access to superannuation for housing purposes?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:56): For that to be an issue, the government would actually have to have a proposal along those lines. We have no such proposal along the lines that the shadow Treasurer has referred to. All matters relating to housing affordability will be addressed in the budget, which is a couple of months away. I am reminded of the policy of the Labor Party, because the only people that I am aware of who have ever taken this policy to an election are members of the Labor Party. In 1993 Paul Keating, as Prime Minister, said this in the policy platform 'Superannuation and homes':
… recognising that income and housing are equally required for a secure and comfortable retirement, Labor will permit part of the deposit on owner occupied dwellings to be funded from the home buyer's superannuation account;
So, the only party that have put that forward in a formal sense to an election are the Labor Party. We know they did not go ahead with that, so the lesson from that episode is you can never trust the Labor Party on anything—then or now.
Immigration
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the action the government has taken to maximise job opportunities for young Australians, and how is the government ensuring that our immigration program puts hardworking Australian workers first?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:58): I thank the honourable member for Hughes for his question. Since the coalition was elected we have created 500,000 jobs, and we are proud of the fact that we are presiding over an economy where we put Australian workers first. We have looked at the experience of Labor when they were in government, and we know that when many people around the country talk about this Leader of the Opposition they say that he cannot be trusted—there is something about this Leader of the Opposition that is not right; he is just not right, he is not genuine. I will give one example of why that is the case. When the Leader of the Opposition was the employment minister back in the golden years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd period, he presided over the 457 program which brought foreign workers into our country to displace some Australian workers, and in that program that was championed by the Labor Party the number of people under the 457 program grew from 68,000 primary visa holders at the end of June 2010 to more than 110,000 people when Labor left office in 2013. We have cleaned up Labor's mess and we have seen a reduction in the number of foreign workers coming into this country because we have put Australian workers first. That is the reality under this government.
Mr Speaker, there are many other examples in the chequered history of the Leader of the Opposition which you could point to that show he is not a genuine person. You could point to many examples in his professional life where he has taken decisions to provide some sort of benefit to the union bosses at the expense of workers. He also did it when he was employment minister in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years—he took decisions to the detriment of workers. There is no question about that. Along with those behind him, he presided over agreements. Imagine going into the food court at any Westfield shopping centre or into a shopping centre where you have a McDonald's, and McDonald's was preferred as an employer under agreements struck by the Labor Party when they were in government and when they were union leaders over the workers and the businesses alongside McDonald's in the food court. The Labor Party had a family-run burger shop paying workers more than what the EBA was negotiated by the union movement and sanctioned by this Leader of the Opposition. That is the sort of shonky behaviour that has filled the CV of this Leader of the Opposition from the time he entered the union movement. No wonder when you go around the country, people question the integrity of this Leader of the Opposition. Look not at what he says, but look at what he does.
Superannuation
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. An eminent person, who is often quoted by the Prime Minister, has described allowing Australians to access super to purchase housing as a 'thoroughly bad idea'. Will the Prime Minister now rule it out?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:01): I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition knew Paul Keating well enough not to tread on that thin ice. He clearly wants to stir my distinguished constituent Paul Keating up because as the Treasurer has just revealed—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney!
Mr TURNBULL: he is not troubling me at all but he must say the distinguished former eminent Prime Minister does, however, have the contradiction of having advocated the very policy he denounced so graphically on the front page of The Sydney Morning Herald. It is remarkable that the—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: 1993 election platform has been so quickly forgotten by so many people, not least the former distinguished and eminent Prime Minister—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will state his point of order.
Mr Shorten: It was just to help the Prime Minister—
The SPEAKER: No, the leader of the opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
Murray Basin Freight Rail Project
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (15:02): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister update the House on projects that will address freight efficiency for the producers of the Wimmera, Mallee and Mildura region?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:03): I thank the member for Mallee for his question. He brings a great deal of experience and diversity to this place. As a farmer—the member for Mallee purchased his first farm as a 22-year-old—he went on to become the president of the Victorian Farmers Federation. He has been an outstanding advocate for primary producers—not just in the Mallee, but right throughout Australia. He also knows a lot about transport. The member for Mallee is a qualified pilot and he understands the need for country communities to remain connected. He understands connectivity in all its forms—whether it is road or rail or airports or telecommunications connectivity—and understands how critical it is for the future of our regional communities.
When it comes to rail, the Murray Basin Freight Rail project is all about connecting growers to ports and markets, capitalising on those new markets that have been established by members on this side of the House through those free trade agreements which have been so well received throughout regional Australia. An efficient freight rail system is critically important to connecting producers in the Mallee with their markets. As the member for Mallee will be happy to tell you if you get five minutes or five hours with him, his one of the most highly productive regions in the nation. It produces export quality dried and stone fruit, wheat and other cereals, wool, sheep and vegetables—a fact that the member for Mallee is particularly proud of.
The Turnbull-Joyce government is addressing the freight needs for our nation's future. It is worth noting that the Murray Basin Freight Rail project is a project that has been added to be Infrastructure Priority List by Infrastructure Australia. The government has committed $220 million to the Murray Basin Freight Rail project, and Prime Minister himself referred earlier to the fact that this is part of a $1.5 billion commitment he has made through our infrastructure package for Victoria.
This Murray Basin Freight Rail project will connect primary producers to their markets and to major ports. It will boost efficiency; it will create jobs throughout the Mallee and the regional economies connected to it. The House will be interested to learn that tenders opened in December and closed last month. This project will mean an extra 500,000 tonnes of grain will be transported by rail in the future; and it will mean that 20,000 fewer trips will be made by trucks to the ports of Geelong, Melbourne and Portland. It will involve an additional 276 jobs during the construction phase. So this is a good project.
This government is getting on with the job of delivering projects which build for our nation's future. We are also paying for future projects through the government's announcement a couple of weeks ago of the development of a freight and supply chain strategy, which has been well received by the industry. So we are delivering a safer, stronger and better regional Australia where people can get ahead. We know that good infrastructure can change lives and can save lives. The Murray Basin Freight Rail project does both. We are getting on with the job of delivering our $50 billion Infrastructure Investment Programme; we are building for the future; and the Murray Basin Freight Rail project is a great example of investment in jobs for the Mallee and regional Victoria. I thank the member for Mallee for his question.
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister reconsider an emissions intensity scheme, given an overwhelming number of organisations—including BHP, AGL, Energy Australia, the Business Council, the National Farmers Federation, Origin Energy, the Energy Market Commission, the CSIRO, the Chief Scientist, the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to name a few—now support one? How long will the Prime Minister continue to stand alone in opposing this scheme?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:06): The honourable member must enjoy coming to Canberra more than anyone, because at least here he has a reasonably high confidence that the lights will stay on, the air conditioner will work, his computer will keep running. He gets out, leaves home and gets down here where he can rely on a bit of energy continuity. He cannot get that at home. Why not? Because the Labor Party in South Australia has now got to the point of such furious rage that the Premier is unable to contain himself even within the parameters of courtesy within the political context, let alone general behaviour. His performance the other day at the press conference with the Minister for the Environment and Energy was completely over the top. I can understand why he is so angry. What he has done is literally sleepwalk his own state into an energy crisis, to the point where, having said only a few months ago that everything was okay—it was fine; it was a great experiment that was leading the nation and the world; South Australia charges ahead—now he has to spend half a billion dollars to buy a new gas-fired power station and a 100 megawatt battery that will run for one hour. If you are short of 100 megawatts for an hour it would be very useful, but if it is for an hour and 10 minutes, not so much.
The reality is that the honourable member knows that the Labor government of South Australia has created the problem that it faces. The honourable member talks about emissions intensity schemes. The fact of the matter is this: an emissions intensity scheme is designed to shift generation from coal-fired power to gas. All of the assumptions that have been built in over the years assumed abundant gas at an affordable price. Thanks to the decision of Labor governments to lock up our gas resources, we are in a position where gas is not available in the quantities it should be, and it is certainly not affordable. If you could buy a long-term contract for gas at $9 a gigajoule—most people in industry will say you cannot—that equals $100 a megawatt hour. That is peaking power; it is not base load power. That is very expensive power, and of course gas prices are much higher than that.
The minister and I and the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan, are determined to sort out this Labor-created mess over the gas sector. We have met with the producers. We have received commitments to continue to provide peaking power. We have more work to do with them. Labor has created a shocking energy crisis, but as their own chamber of commerce head in South Australia said, South Australia leads the nation in energy mismanagement. It is the canary in the coalmine. The Leader of the Opposition would have all of the nation like South Australia. (Time expired)
Telecommunications
Ms PRICE (Durack) (15:10): My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure representing the Minister for Communications. Minister, regional, rural and remote Australia faces a number of challenges, including poor mobile telephone reception in many parts. Can the minister inform the House what the government is doing to improve communications in regional, rural and remote Australia, especially in my electorate of Durack?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (15:10): I thank the member for Durack, who is a terrific advocate for the needs of her community and the needs of rural and regional Australia. I very much remember the very productive visit I made with the member to Geraldton in April 2014, where we understood the requirements for improved mobile coverage and improved broadband coverage. Not only did we understand those requirements; the Turnbull government is delivering on meeting those requirements.
The Mobile Black Spots Program has now seen some $220 million of Commonwealth government money committed to delivering new mobile base stations all around Australia. Round 1 saw 499 base stations. $100 million of Commonwealth funding secured $385 million in total funding. Round 2: 266 mobile base stations. What have we seen in Durack? In Durack there have been 42 new base stations committed. Ten of those are already live.
Let's compare that to what Labor's policy would have delivered. The coalition policy is delivering 499 base stations around Australia under round 1. Labor's policy: zero! The coalition's policy is delivering mobile phone base stations across Western Australia. Labor's policy for Western Australia would have delivered zero. What about all around Australia? The coalition's policy is delivering hundreds of base stations all around Australia. Labor's policy would have delivered zero.
Those three numbers—zero, zero, zero; triple 0—is a very well-known number in telecommunications. It took the Labor Party to turn it into a description of their policy for mobile communication. What have we got from the shadow minister for regional communications? He issued this laughable media release last year which says, 'Labor's policy on mobile black spots is to …' Their policy is to do nothing. What does the shadow minister for regional communications actually spend his days doing? At eight o'clock he opens the window, says, 'No—we have no money for you,' then closes the window. He is done. That is what Labor does on regional communications.
On this side of the parliament we are delivering for the people of rural, regional and remote Australia. Over 700 base stations are being delivered under the Mobile Black Spots Program. The NBN is being rolled out. More than 4.1 million Australian households are now in a position to receive the NBN. The Turnbull government is delivering for regional and remote communications, including in Durack. We are delivering. This lot delivered nothing.
Mr Turnbull: I asked that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 42 of 2016-17
The SPEAKER (15:13): I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 42 of 2016-17 entitled Cybersecurity follow-up audit across entities.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:14): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Agreement to Amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:15): by leave—It gives me great pleasure to table the Agreement to Amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the accompanying National Interest Analysis for parliament’s consideration.
This is our most comprehensive update to an FTA to date, and a demonstration of the government’s commitment to ensuring our trade agenda is modern and agile. As the make-up of our economy and the needs of business change, so too must the rules that govern our international trade.
In June 2015, the prime ministers of Australia and Singapore announced the launch of the Singapore-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP), an initiative to strengthen and deepen our two countries’ strategic, trade, economic, defence and people-to-people links. The SAFTA review is the key economic plank of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. It reflects Australia and Singapore’s unwavering commitment to the principles of free and open trade.
The original SAFTA provided a strong platform for the expansion of our economic and trade relationship with Singapore—a 21st century regional economy and, of course, gateway to the rest of Asia. SAFTA has seen Australia’s goods and services exports to Singapore grow to some $5.5 billion in 2015-16, and services exports to some $4.3 billion—our fourth-largest export market for services.
The updated SAFTA will give Australian businesses a competitive edge in Singapore. It will provide new access for Australian service providers, particularly in education and in professional services. Additional qualifications in law, medicine and allied health from a number of Australian universities will now also be recognised in Singapore. Australian lawyers and financial service providers will enjoy improved access to Singapore’s legal and financial services markets.
The SAFTA review will create new opportunities for businesses to bid for high-value government procurement contracts in Singapore, including in sectors such as road transport, construction and engineering. The updated agreement will improve mobility and lengths of stay for Australian businesspeople and their spouses and dependants. It will include modern outcomes on telecommunications services and e-commerce. It will harmonise trade rules in goods, services and investment, thereby reducing red tape for businesses.
The business community has resoundingly welcomed the breakthroughs that we have been able to make in the SAFTA review.
The Australian Services Roundtable said:
The review brings about certainty for services firms in a range of areas and creates an economic relationship which will enhance trade opportunities for this important market.
The Law Council of Australia said the review demonstrates that SAFTA is:
…a useful, "living agreement" that can deliver enhanced market access outcomes for the Australian legal profession and their clients.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce observed that:
Singapore is best placed to be a hub for businesses looking to expand into the broader South-east Asian region and these changes make it easier for companies to do that.
I would like to acknowledge the bipartisan support for this FTA review.
I table the Agreement to Amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, with its National Interest Analysis and I commend them to the House.
I do present a copy of the Agreement to Amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreementand a copy of my ministerial statement.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (15:19): I thank the minister for his statement to the House. As I said last year, Labor welcomes this update to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The agreement was signed by the Howard government and the Tong government in 2003 and was updated by the Gillard government in 2011. This is the second update to this agreement. Singapore is our fifth-largest trading partner, and this update provides a framework for bilateral investments. It also increases the recognition of a number of Australian qualifications. This will provide more opportunities for Australian workers in the areas of education, law, e-commerce, telecommunications and professional services. All of this is good news.
Unfortunately, this is the only substantial thing the Turnbull government has done on trade in the last 18 months. The Hawke and Keating governments are the undisputed titans of trade. The open, competitive economy that we have today is built on the wreckage of the tariff walls they ripped down. No other Australian government, before or since, holds a candle to them. But that does not mean that nothing has happened. The Howard government delivered three free trade agreements, including this one with Singapore. The last Labor government also delivered three free trade agreements. So did the Abbott government; in fact, they delivered three free trade agreements in 18 months. In the same time, this government has not delivered one new free trade agreement. This update is the only thing they have done. And they promised so much more. They promised they would sign a deal with India by the end of 2015. That has not happened. They promised negotiations would be underway by now with the EU, and we are still waiting for the scoping study to be developed.
Mr Ciobo: When was that?
Mr CLARE: That was in the Governor-General's address; you might check that.
The Trade in Services Agreement was also supposed to be signed last year. The government said last year—also in the Governor-General's address after the election—that it would be playing a leading role in finalising this agreement. A few weeks ago, we found out that they have less than one full-time person working on this in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. At the start of this year, they also had the great idea to rush legislation into the parliament to ratify the TPP to pressure Donald Trump to support it. And didn't that work out well?
I do want to encourage the government, though, on the work they are doing to strike a free trade agreement with Indonesia. This is where the focus should be. There is a lot of potential here to strike a good deal. Indonesia is our next-door neighbour. In population terms, it is the fourth-biggest country in the world. By the middle of this century, it is expected to be the fourth-biggest economy in the world. At the moment, trade with Indonesia is massively underdone, and this is an opportunity to fix that.
Indonesia is just the start. The Prime Minister and the government should put their shoulders to the wheel to help finalise RCEP—the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Now that the United States has pulled out of the TPP, this is the regional trade agreement that holds the most potential. If a good deal can be struck here, it will bring together 16 countries and about 30 per cent of the world's GDP in one trade agreement that includes China, Japan, India, all the ASEAN nations and ourselves.
The key point is this: this is a government that talks a big game on trade. The Prime Minister gives lots of lectures on trade. But lectures do not create jobs; good deals do. We welcome the update of the Singapore agreement, but this government has a lot more work to do.
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:23): by leave—I move:
That the House take note of the statement on the Agreement to amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (15:23): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered at the next sitting.
Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) 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:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) the position of National Rural Health Commissioner terminates on 1 July 2020, and there is no provision in the Bill to extend the position;
(2) there are no review provisions of the Commissioner's position within the legislation;
(3) the scope of the Commissioner's role is primarily focussed on the establishment of a National Rural Generalist Pathway and the Bill appears to ignore other issues in rural health; and
(4) there is no advisory body proposed to assist the National Rural Health Commissioner with his or her work".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) ( 15:25 ): The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Makin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (15:26): I am pleased to rise in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. It is important legislation to get Australia's first national rural health commissioner off the ground, as a valuable advocate for regional and rural health. This bill delivers on our commitment from the 2016 election and, yet again, demonstrates how the Turnbull government is committed to addressing access to health services in rural and remote Australia. The rural health commissioner will work with communities, training colleges, universities, the health sector and all levels of government to improve rural health policies. A well-trained local health expert located in rural and remote towns in many cases forms the heartbeat of local health care for small communities around Australia. A national rural health commissioner will be their champion.
The coalition government is providing $4.4 million to establish the new commissioner, who will act as an independent statutory office holder with duties directed by the minister responsible for rural health. I am pleased to see that addressing the issue of workforce distribution in regional and rural areas is a key priority for the commissioner. It is this particular issue that I would like to focus on in my remaining time, as it is absolutely critical in my electorate of Robertson.
As I raised in the House just recently, this has been an issue that I have been fighting for on behalf of our local community since well before I became the member for Robertson in 2013. After years of inaction from Labor, who simply failed over six years of representing Robertson, to understand or address this emerging problem, the coalition made it part of our growth plan for the Central Coast in the lead-up to the 2013 election. By pledging to look into the unique circumstances facing our region in attracting and retaining GPs, we took the first step in acknowledging that more needed to be done. When we looked into it, it emerged that part of the problem was that the District of Workforce Shortage system, known as DWS, was actually using old data from 2004. Thanks to the coalition government, we made long-awaited changes to the DWS calculations so that now the most up-to-date data is used to more accurately identify areas where there is a doctor shortage. For those areas with DWS status, it then becomes easier to attract and recruit GPs to help meet that need.
Twenty-six suburbs in my electorate of Robertson were given DWS status, including Avoca Beach, Copacabana, Davistown, Empire Bay, Erina, Green Point, Killcare, Kincumber, Saratoga, Terrigal and Wagstaffe. This has helped people living in these suburbs enormously. Yet, as I said in my last speech on this issue, these changes did not include Umina Beach, Patonga, Ettalong Beach, Woy Woy or other suburbs in the peninsula region.
The DWS may not turn out to be the silver bullet that tackles this issue in the most appropriate way for residents on the peninsula, but one thing is clear: something needs to be done, and something needs to be done quickly. Local residents like Nicole from Umina Beach told me it took her two years to be able to access a local doctor on the Peninsula, and she has said it can now take her two weeks just to get an appointment. A local GP, Dr Ray Martin, told me the issue was 'past crisis point'.
Armed with these alarming stories, I approached the Minister for Health and the Assistant Minister for Health, who is the minister responsible for the health workforce. I invited the assistant minister to hear firsthand from the people in our electorate who were being hit the hardest. I am pleased to report that the visit happened last week and that we received an overwhelming response, and I note the presence of the assistant minister in the House this afternoon. With less than a week's notice, around a hundred residents and local doctors attended a community forum at Jasmine Greens Park Kiosk cafe in Umina. It was standing room only, as locals packed in to hear this issue addressed. Bob and Judy from Woy Woy were right when they said to me afterwards, 'Wow, what a turnout.' It really was standing room only. Another attendee, Sue, said she, 'thoroughly enjoyed this morning's discussion about the health crisis on the Peninsula', and yet she said, 'I'm really distressed for the doctors and how hard they are working to meet the needs for us locals.' We heard from people like Kim, who shared her story about how frustrating it was for her to try to find a doctor for her elderly mother, who suffers from dementia. Kim said she approached 36 doctors located on the Peninsula, all without success. Thankfully, she eventually found a GP who was able to see her mother, but they are based at Green Point, more than 20 minutes away, and Green Point is actually one of the suburbs whose DWS listing, which the coalition government obtained, enabled more GPs to be recruited to the area. We also heard from local health professionals like Dr Paul Duff, a respected local GP, who helped many of us understand some of the background to the doctor shortage problem and why it needs to be addressed.
The local primary health network—Hunter, New England and Central Coast Primary Health Network—has done some significant work in helping us understand this state of play, with up-to-date data on Peninsula general practices to assess and evaluate the workforce. Their findings confirm that a high proportion of GPs in the region are at or nearing retirement age, both in the community and in aged-care facilities. This lack of a younger GP workforce, and very few GP registrars, means there could be a risk of a large, vulnerable and ageing patient population on the Peninsula having limited access to a GP in the near future. These GPs, as we heard at our forum on Friday, are dedicated, committed and passionate about helping families and local residents right across the Central Coast. But it is simply unacceptable that, at a time when bulk-billing rates are at record highs of around 90 per cent in my electorate of Robertson, many GP practice books are closed. In the case of Dr Martin, when his practice closes down later this month, there will be around 1,200 patients looking for a new GP. The PHN data revealed that there is an active patient population of more than 35,000 in the Peninsula area, with around 34 GPs across 10 general practices, including a skin cancer clinic. Sixteen of these 34 GPs are over 61 years of age, and along with one of these doctors retiring, another is reducing their hours. Furthermore, the minister's office advised that 20 per cent of people in the Robertson electorate are 65 years of age or older, compared to the national average of almost 15 per cent.
The government does not and cannot hire, move or direct doctors, but we are listening closely to the heartbeat of my community, and this conversation is the start of genuine and much-needed action to tackle this urgent problem. After the forum that we hosted at Umina, we then hosted a roundtable with experts from International Medical Recruitment and key community advocates. We heard from representatives from the Central Coast Local Health District, PHN CEO Richard Nankervis and the University of Newcastle. The University of Newcastle is a key player in this conversation through its lead in developing the Central Coast Medical School and Medical Research Institute. This institute and medical school will operate as a branch faculty of the University of Newcastle and will provide additional medical students and young doctors when it becomes operational. The federal government has committed $32.5 million to the medical school, which will be co-located with Gosford Hospital, delivering hundreds of new jobs, along with education, health innovation and excellence.
This is a game changer that will form part of our long-term solution, but I would like to quickly return to the immediate issue of getting more doctors into the Peninsula as soon as possible. Importantly, we are committed to working together to find a solution to this critical shortage. One of the central resolutions that emerged from the discussion on Friday was to leverage the work already being done by the PHN. Following the roundtable with stakeholders in West Gosford and with the assistant minister, we were able to announce a fresh collaboration with GP Synergy, the regional training organisation responsible for the placement of registrars in the area. This will equip and enable the development of strategies to increase GP registrar numbers on the Peninsula and to assess the number of GPs able to provide supervision and mentorship to medical students. There will also be a renewed focus on evaluating and supporting GP succession planning, to make sure that we are not in this situation in the long term. Finally, a commitment has been made to do everything we can to keep the community up to date. This includes circulating information to the broader Central Coast PHN regions to raise awareness and to encourage the potential relocation of doctors from GP regions that are more densely populated. These commitments will only be the start, and there is more to be done.
But can I say, this is much, much more than was ever achieved during the six years of Labor that we endured on the Central Coast. Labor senator Deborah O'Neill, a former one-term member for Robertson, and her predecessor, Belinda Neal, simply failed to address this issue. Yet all we have heard from Senator O'Neill locally are complaints, with no sign of wanting to support the people on the Peninsula in this important fight. The Labor senator was quoted in the Central Coast Express Advocate as saying the coalition had 'done nothing' on its 2013 election commitment, yet the fact of the matter is that the senator's office is based in Erina, one of the 26 suburbs added to the DWS maps that I alluded to earlier. In 2014 a group of doctors from Erina approached me asking for someone to do something about the doctor shortage in that area. They spoke, we listened and we acted. We had to, because Labor had failed. Senator O'Neill also claims that I have 'suddenly decided this issue is an emergency'. This, to be honest, is an insult to the hundreds of local residents who have written to me and an insult to the 100 people who turned up at Jasmine Greens Park Kiosk in the pouring rain last week.
Our public commitment to fight to address the GP shortage has come after months and months of sustained hard work in listening to the needs of the people Woy Woy, Ettalong, Umina and surrounding suburbs, and partnering with them to come up with real solutions. It comes after several meetings with ministers in Canberra. It comes after door-knocking and speaking with local doctors, local GPs and local residents across the region.
We still have a lot more to do to ensure that we address this issue. But I am pleased to be able to stand in this House today not just to commend this legislation but also to endorse the focus of this government in tackling important health issues in rural areas. The forum at Jasmine Greens Park Kiosk was an outstanding example of the steps that we are taking to demonstrate effective community action and we will not rest until more is done to help the people of the Peninsula to see a local GP when they need to. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (15:38): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Health Insurance Act to establish a National Rural Health Commissioner, who is to provide advice to the relevant minister on the role of the rural generalist, to develop a national rural generalist pathway, and to provide advice on rural health reform, as requested. The proposed commissioner's position will cease operation on 1 July 2020.
We will not be opposing this legislation, but we do believe that the commissioner has been given a very narrow purview and we believe this falls short of what the expectations properly are. I know the announcement made by the coalition in the 2016 election campaign about the appointment of a National Rural Health Commissioner and the development of a rural generalist pathway was supported by the sector. I note in particular that there was good support after the announcement of the position by the government. There was support from the National Rural Health Alliance. The CEO, David Butt, said:
Australia's first Rural Health Commissioner has the potential to be the catalyst for transformational change for the 7 million people who live in rural and remote areas.
He then made the observation:
Currently, poorer access to health services results in poorer health outcomes. That covers the whole spectrum of health – promotion of good health and wellbeing, prevention of illness, early intervention, particularly in general practice and primary health care, and more specialised treatment when needed.
The Rural Doctors Association of Australia welcomed the pledge, and that is important. Dr Ewen McPhee
We're welcoming this with open arms, this is a fantastic opportunity for rural Australians and all the groups that represent and address the health needs of rural Australians to come together at the highest levels of government, and make sure that our voices are being heard.
That is important.
Significantly, the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, an organisation for which I have the greatest of respect, welcomed the announcement by the Hon. Dr David Gillespie, who is at present at the table in the chamber, to establish the role of the National Rural Health Commissioner. Professor Ruth Stewart, the ACRRM president, said:
The National Rural Health Commissioner will be an independent advocate, advising government on regional and rural health reform and representing the needs and rights of regional, rural and remote Australians and will lead the establishment of a National Rural Generalist Pathway.
She went on to say:
The College has been working towards the implementation of a National Rural Generalist Pathway for a number of years, and we are pleased that this important initiative has been given a high priority.
Hear, hear I say to that. I will come back to that a little later.
I want to point out how important it is to address properly the health needs of people who live in the bush. To date, sadly, we have failed the bush. I say this having been the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services in a previous government. But we do believe that while the development of a national rural generalist pathway is, in my view, more than welcome and is long overdue, it is unclear what role the commissioner will have in terms of how the implementation will be and what his or her role might be beyond that. This could have been a real opportunity to create a commissioner with real political support who could put rural and remote health on the agenda. I am hoping that this is the case—that it will happen—but I am concerned about the narrowness of that person's brief.
These concerns are further underlined by the fact that the office will cease to exist in 2020. I wonder why. Why would you want to terminate this position in 2020? The concerns of people in the bush about their health and health care will go well beyond 2020, and I can tell you that we will not have the solutions by them. It is very important, I think, that we support the amendments Labor will move aimed at improving the legislation by broadening the scope of the commissioner's role and reviewing the terms of reference. I note that there is no provision in the bill to extend the position. There is no review of the provisions of the commissioner's position within the legislation. That is a problem that needs to be addressed by an amendment. The scope of the commissioner's role is primarily focused on the establishment of a national rural generalist pathway and the bill appears to ignore other issues in rural health. That is a real problem. Also, there is no advisory body proposed to assist the National Rural Health Commissioner with his or her work. That is also a significant problem.
Those of us who have lived in the bush for any length of time—and I know you have Deputy Speaker Coulton—understand the vagaries of health services and what it means. We note from the work of the Parliamentary Library, through the Bills Digests, that they quote a number of medical practitioners who are currently working in the bush. I note that in their report, which includes data from tables in an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report, it is very clear that in 2015 the supply of employed medical practitioners, not general practitioners, in major cities was 441.6. In rural and very remote areas, which is where I live, it was 262.8—probably 80 per cent more medical practitioners operating in the cities. And of course what that leads to is different levels of service.
That explains why, in part, we have very significant and different health outcomes for people who live in the bush. And we know—I know you know from your experience, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, as I do from mine, and the minister at the table surely knows—that we need to do a great deal more if we are to assist in improving the health needs of people who live in the bush. Australians who live in rural and remote communities have mortality rates—and here I am quoting from the AIHW, itself quoted by the Parliamentary Library—that are 1.4 times higher than for those living in major cities; mortality rates for coronary heart disease were between 1.2 and 1.5 times higher in rural and remote areas compared with major cities, and death rates due to diabetes were between 2.5 and four times as high.
You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure many others in this place know, that if you live in a remote part of this country—what I call 'bush', as opposed to regional New South Wales, or coastal New South Wales, which some people regard as regions—and if you live where I live and look after the community that I look after that they are desperately in need of health care. Aboriginal people in my electorate have the worst health outcomes of any people in Australia, yet they are very concerned about the nature of health services that get delivered to them. I would have thought that the job of this new person, this position, should be expanded well beyond the scope of what is currently being envisaged and should talk about the panoply of issues that confront the health workforce, for example—not only in employing more doctors, but we know that we have an emerging health crisis in this country around the shortage of nurses. That will impact upon the bush. We know that in all areas of allied health care there are shortages of workers, particularly in the bush. We know there are shortages of Aboriginal health workers in the bush, and we know that government—any government—is yet to really embrace the idea of physician assistants and giving them a role in the bush.
I know it is something that has been explored in Queensland, and the previous, Labor, government in Queensland actually had explored this option and built in training packages at the University of Queensland. I now think there are only two other institutions in the country that provide training opportunities for physician assistants. But I do want to commend the Queenslanders for picking up the idea of rural general practice. It is very clear, in my view, that if you provide a rural generalist pathway and you expand the training opportunities for doctors working in the bush then you will get a far better health outcome for those people who are being served. I want to commend the Queenslanders, and ACRRM in particular, for advancing the cause of rural generalists. They deserve praise. I know there have been naysayers in other parts of the profession. What I say to them is: 'Get your head out of the sand. If you don't understand the need to provide additional specialist training for GPs who are working remotely so that they can do other procedures that might be required, then you're failing to understand the nature of the health workforce issues in this country or the health needs in this country, and that is really very important.'
Last week I was in a very remote part of the Northern Territory, Alpurrurulam. Alpurrurulam is a community of about 500 people. It is closer to Mount Isa than it is to Tennant Creek or Alice Springs, which is where I live, but a 1½-hour flight by light aircraft. For much of the year it is inaccessible because of road issues. But real issues exist in communities like this around fundamental questions about the health workforce: how do they attract not only doctors but qualified nurses, allied health professionals who are able to move in and out? How do they provide the housing and resources that are needed to make sure that those communities are being properly served? And they have endemic chronic disease. We know this, and I know the minister at the table would understand this all too well. We know from evidence given by the AIHW that the levels of service that are being given to Aboriginal people who live in the bush and other people who live in remote parts of Australia are far less than those being provided for people who live in the cities. Part of it is about the accessibility and availability of the workforce. And if this new position does anything, it has to look far beyond the idea of just rural generalists and look at the whole panoply of health workforce issues so that we know that we have someone in the structures of government whose job it is to examine the detail of what is required to improve health outcomes and the opportunities for the health workforce in the bush.
We know there have been, over many years, all sorts of proposals to expand opportunities. There have been incentive payments that are clear and obvious for remote doctors, and they are very good. They do not exist in the same way for other health professionals, and they perhaps should, because we need to make sure that we are incentivising people to relocate from major metropolitan centres, where it could be argued that there is a bit of overservicing, to people in the bush, where we know there is dramatic underservicing. And we have to comprehend the rationality of looking at people as individual workers and understanding the dilemmas they face in relocating their families from, say, Sydney or Melbourne to somewhere like—even your own electorate of Parkes, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, or, in my own electorate, perhaps to Katherine, and working remotely from Katherine into remote communities.
We are now seeing some GPs who are job sharing in the bush. They are quite happy to do a fortnight or three weeks at a remote community like Alpurrurulam and then go away, come back in another month and do another three weeks. If we can get those sorts of things happening on an ongoing basis then we know we are getting continuity of care, and that is what is ultimately very important if we are going to improve the health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who live in the bush as well as people more generally who live in the bush. Men in particular have a problem in the bush, partly because they are men and also because they just fail to get the service they need because they are just too damned stupid sometimes to actually stand up and take notice of what people are saying to them and go out and get help. Clearly, this is an issue which this position ought to be contemplating.
I would also argue that an issue which we know now is top of the agenda for many people around this country is the issue of mental health. We need to make sure that people who live and work in these remote parts of Australia are being supported in that regard, and that requires mental health practitioners. We have insufficient numbers of mental health practitioners working in the bush.
No magic wand is going to change that. But what we can do is to work cooperatively and in a bipartisan way, I hope, to try to improve these health outcomes by getting workforces which are properly trained and focusing their attention on the needs of people who live in the bush—well, what I call the bush but many might call pretty remote. It is remote, but it is therefore necessary that we appreciate that these people have the worst health outcomes in the country and therefore need the most attention.
I would say to the minister at the table, Minister Gillespie: whilst we commend you for initiating this proposal, I think you do need to look beyond 2020. I think you need to look at the amendments which have been proposed by the Labor Party. That would be, I think, a good thing to do—to accept in good faith that those amendments are being moved to try to improve the outcomes for people living in rural and remote areas of Australia or what others might call the bush but I might call something different.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (15:53): Today I am quite proud to stand in this parliament and support this great bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. But I should also commend those opposite for their bipartisan support in ensuring that this bill is passed. It is an important issue, particularly for my electorate of Maranoa, a rural and remote electorate that takes up 43 per cent of Queensland. I do commend those opposite for coming on this journey with us.
But I have to express most of my gratitude to our Assistant Minister for Health, Dr David Gillespie, my National Party colleague, for what he has put in place—building on the work done by Senator Fiona Nash, as his predecessor, many years ago, to make rural health an issue and bring it to the forefront in Australia—and for making sure that today we bring forward legislation that will actually improve the lives and wellbeing of people living in regional and remote Australia. That is something we should be quite proud of as a parliament. I am, as a National Party member, very proud to be part of a party that understands the importance of rural and regional Australia. It is about making those communities out there communities of choice to live in, and that does not come without having a proper health service. Dr David Gillespie has done an outstanding job in this, and he should be commended for what he has done. So congratulations, Dr Gillespie.
I think it is also important to recognise that this bill is about actually getting back to having the grassroots drive the outcomes, and not having Canberra go out there and tell the people of rural and regional Australia exactly what they should have. This is about letting the community drive the outcomes and putting in place an environment where a commissioner can connect with the local community to be able to drive the outcomes that they are looking for—not what Canberra is looking for. We are not the holders of all knowledge and wisdom. We actually need to embrace our communities out there to get a proper understanding—not to come in here and give lectures about what should be happening, but to actually encounter those professionals who are out in regional and rural Australia who will actually be able to give us the insight required to make the proper policy settings to take regional and rural health to a new level.
The bill also builds on the work of my state colleague Lawrence Springborg, who is the former state minister who actually instituted local health boards in Queensland to drive health outcomes from the grassroots up. That is a really important piece that has had significant outcomes for people in my electorate by ensuring that there is a community board that drives the outcomes and tells Brisbane exactly what they require with respect to the outcomes that they need, whether that be an X-ray machine in Barcaldine or a CT scanner in Warwick. So this is building on what our National Party and LNP colleagues have done in Queensland, and I think it comes down to two words: common sense. That is what our electorate wants from us. They want commonsense outcomes to come out of this place that will actually drive better lives for each and every one of them.
Under this bill, the health commissioner will also be specifically charged with the responsibility for developing and promoting training and career opportunities for health practitioners across regional and remote Australia. This is an important piece to me in particular. I have an electorate that is 43 per cent of Queensland. It is important to be able to lure young doctors coming out of university at the start of their careers, or even those at the end, to come out and impart their wisdom and be part of our community, to ensure that we actually get the right outcomes. That is very important to me.
In fact, in Queensland, we are probably a little further ahead—as we normally are—with respect to the national rural generalist pathway in Queensland. In fact, a good friend of mine, Dr Tom Gleeson, who I saw on Saturday at the Roma airport, was one of the first ever to be appointed. He will be in Canberra in a couple of weeks to impart his experience of what this has done for him but also for the community of St George that he lives in. Dr Gleeson is a young man who was educated in Charleville, went away to university and now has come back to his community. He is prepared to give his expertise and skills to make the community of St George a better one for each and every one of those who live there.
These are the sorts of things that we need. We need to have pathways to entice and incentivise people to come back, and to give them a pathway into not just being a GP but into general surgery, obstetrics, anaesthetics and even mental health, which is a significant issue right across regional and rural Australia. So creating this pathway will enable the commissioner to work with the government to validate these practitioners as an absolute necessity in the rural and regional and remote areas of this country. It builds on the great work that the health professionals, not only in Maranoa but right across rural and regional Australia, are undertaking on a daily basis.
I am quite fortunate to live in an electorate where I feel very safe that, if something untoward were to happen to me and I were to need medical services, I would be looked after by some of the best practitioners in this country, if not the world. In fact, I have had the need to use the Warwick base hospital, and I can assure you that my family and I were nothing less than impressed by the professionalism and hard work that those people are putting in to a regional community such as Warwick. So this builds on that.
This initiative will also ensure that we get more timely and acute diagnosis of the issues of people in regional and rural Australia and their health concerns and sicknesses. In many ways, it will also lead to taking the pressure off metropolitan services by providing people who are able to identify those issues. Having them being able to extend further than being a GP is very important to ensuring that we get better outcomes. This pathway program is an exceptional outcome for the people of rural and regional Australia, and I can assure you that Dr Tom Gleeson will epitomise what is the very best of that. He is very proud to be somebody who is a product of Maranoa. He has been given the opportunity to come back and expand his career and to go past being a GP. Getting the professional acknowledgement and satisfaction of being able to extend past the basic services of a GP is important, and enticing him and his young family back to St George to contribute to that community in such a way I think speaks volumes of that program and of what the commissioner will continue to do.
The commissioner will also be tasked with providing the health minister with crucially important advice on rural health reform. As I said earlier, it is important that outcomes are driven from the community up and not from Canberra to the community. We need to encourage the community to become part of the solution on this, and what this step will do is open that up to ensure that there is a conduit for this commissioner from the community back to Canberra so that the outcomes that we give are ones that will actually make a difference. I have no doubt that this will lead to far better outcomes for communities in my electorate like Charleville, Chinchilla, Longreach or Kingaroy, or for any other regional or rural community right across Australia. This is an exceptionally proud moment for me to stand as part of this parliament and be able to say that we are actually going to improve the lives and wellbeing of so many rural and regional Australians.
I think it is also important to acknowledge that what this has the potential to do, as I said earlier, is not only to give more acute and timely diagnosis of sickness for people in regional and rural Australia; it also has the potential to cut the cost of patient travel times and funding for people in regional and rural Australia. We have to pay a significant amount to get people from regional and remote Maranoa into Brisbane or Toowoomba, into a larger centre, so this has potential around cost savings for the people of regional and rural Australia and ensuring that our health costs do not continue to blow out.
It is also important because it acknowledges that electorates like Maranoa are the engine room of this economy. Agriculture is booming and these communities are booming. The reality is that we have to make them communities of choice, and we will not be able to decentralise people away from major cities unless we can provide good health services, good education and a job. The National Party has again been at the forefront of ensuring that we put in place policies that decentralise, that incentivise people to move out and take the opportunities that are out there in rural and regional Australia. This measure is another cog in that wheel to ensure that our communities can become communities of choice for those who want to live out there.
It is also important to acknowledge that our outcomes in rural and regional Australia are not as good as those in metropolitan areas. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that rural Australians have higher rates of death, particularly as a result of coronary heart disease, motor vehicle accidents and emphysema. The institute hypothesized—and I think we all know—that access to services is likely to be the core contributor. There are currently 409 medical practitioners for every 100,000 people in the cities, compared to only 253 per 100,000 people in remote areas. Yet the rate of emergency admissions for surgery is highest for the very remote areas, at 22 per 100,000, which is almost twice the amount of admissions to city hospitals at 12 per 100,000.
Sadly, that reality does not surprise me. On my travels around my vast electorate of Maranoa, one of the prevailing concerns for people living in that area is the provision of health services. Over the last 30 years, the incidence of cancer has climbed from 383 per 100,000 to 504 per 100,000 in 2008, before decreasing slightly to 407 in 2017. In terms of mortality, over the same period the rate has decreased from 209 per 100,000 to 161 per 100,000. That is to be expected with the research and innovation occurring in the health space in terms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Let us not forget the importance of the provision of the right advice from our health experts, first and foremost, in terms of preventative screening and assessments and, obviously, treatment. That is where people with the dedication of Tom Gleeson come into effect.
It is important to acknowledge that, despite the decrease in mortality rates across Queensland, the Western Queensland PHN mortality rates for cancer patients over the five-year period from 2009 to 2013 was 206.6 per 100,000. This rate of mortality is far higher than that of the Brisbane North PHN, at 167.8, and the Brisbane South PHN, at 183.2. The Gold Coast PHN has a mortality rate of 169.1. In fact, the only PHN across the country that has a result worse than the Western Queensland PHN is the Northern Territory, which records a rate of 210.7 per 100,000. To allow these statistics to continue to grow and the gap to continue to widen would be a travesty, and it is something that we as a government—and even the opposition, as they have, quite rightly, supported this bill—cannot allow to happen. We have to stand strong and firm on this and make sure that we walk hand in hand with our regional and rural communities to ensure that we are able to provide an environment in regional and rural Australia where their health outcomes are not disadvantaged because of their postcode. What this initiative says to the people of my electorate and to all people living and working in regional and rural Australia is that, with access to quality health care, it does not matter where you live.
It is also important to acknowledge that it is about preserving that precious human capital that we need in regional and rural Australia and developing it. It is about them not leaving regional and rural Australia, knowing that we have a good health system, that we have a good education system, that the job opportunities are there and that they understand that the opportunities that are provided in regional and rural Australia will give them the opportunity to have a career, to start a business and to raise a family, and that they can get that with the same equity as those in metropolitan Australia.
This is an important day for the people of rural and regional Australia. It is important that we took this step. We will continue to evolve this measure as rural and regional Australia evolves. It is important that we as a government, no matter the persuasion, continue to acknowledge that and to be fluid as those circumstances change. I am proud to be part of a National Party, a coalition government, that has brought this to the fore.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:07): The Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017 is of particular interest to my electorate of Lyons, as we identify as regional and rural, and certainly as relatively forgotten by this government in everything from telecommunications to health, education and the provision of medical services.
The appointment of a national rural health commissioner, strategically placed to drive rural health services, is music to many people's ears. Certainly, Labor will not oppose this legislation and appointment. However, Labor are seeking to improve it. Labor will seek to move amendments in the Senate that will broaden the scope of the commissioner's role, that will review rather than cease the commissioner's role on 1 July 2020 and that will establish an unpaid advisory board to support the commissioner. Labor's concerns are not around prioritising a focus on rural health but rather around the government's very narrow focus for this role. A national generalist pathway is a welcome addition to the complex world of healthcare service delivery. However, there are many other issues that need strategic management and long-term vision to support effective service capacity in rural and regional areas. This is no easy task, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, and Labor appreciate that. In fact, we did suggest and support the creation of a similar position long before the government initiated this measure.
The incomplete package before the parliament today represents a missed opportunity for rural healthcare service providers. The proposal is for a commissioner to be appointed by the minister on a full- or part-time basis for a period of up to two years. It lacks substance. Labor's preference was to create a health reform commission with more people and more reach to make more of a difference. Rural health care is a complicated chain of services that work with people through all stages of their lives.
If you were to take a snapshot of the lives of rural Tasmanians, including many in my electorate, the picture would look significantly different to the lives of those in central Queensland, in outback Western Australia or South Australia, or in any of the other regional and rural areas in this country. It is no surprise that a one-size-fits-all approach will never work in a country as diverse as ours. Australians living in rural and remote areas have much poorer health outcomes than those living in our major cities. The contrast is most stark for those in remote areas where average life spans of women and men are, respectively, two years and 3.4 years lower than city dwellers. Suicide rates are twice as high. Levels of chronic disease, including diabetes, coronary heart disease, lung cancer, eye disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are considerably higher. The ratio of health professionals, particularly in specialised sectors, is much lower than in city areas.
Alarmingly, despite much poorer health and much lower incomes, the average yearly Medicare Benefits Schedule spend per individual in remote areas is $536 a year compared with $910 in major cities. That gap really tells us something. Let us drill down into this a little more. Tasmania has a population of 513,000 people, with only 625 GPs across 152 practices. That means each doctor needs to have, on average, 820 patients. Tasmanians do not do very well with average weekly earnings; they are $1,344 per week. They are the lowest in Australia. Why does this matter?
The Abbott-Turnbull government has frozen the Medicare rebate for doctors, which means bulk-billing rates have fallen faster in Tasmania than anywhere else—from 76.4 per cent to 74 per cent in the last three months of 2016. This freefall is escalating, which is alarming. We have low income, low numbers of GPs and high doctor fees which are going up ever more. The GP rebate freeze looks to be a long one—kicking right through to 2020 as an election promise that was delivered by the Turnbull government. More cost equals less access for Tasmanian families. It means more pressure on late-diagnosis services. It means more use of the ER and ambulances for low-level issues. It means cost shifting from the federal government to the state. With a Liberal government in Tasmania as well, I am not hopeful that it gets the importance of health care as a universal, accessible necessity.
There are 1,560 allied health professionals across Tasmania. Our training sector to boost and strengthen this cohort has been negatively impacted by the stripping back of TAFE training services and the deregulating of university courses. All the loops in the chain of health care in Tasmania are cracking and breaking. We welcome this initiative today, but it is not enough.
Facebook chatrooms are full of people chasing appointments with doctors' surgeries who have their books open. They are one of the key ways that people in my electorate make contact with each other, and they are full of people seeking openings in GP appointment books. The emergency rooms at Royal Hobart and Launceston General are full of patients seeking basic treatments that a GP could otherwise manage. For higher needs patients or those needing diagnosis and treatment, there are 286 medical specialists. No wonder chronic care is the new focus. The system has lost the ability to manage early intervention and preventative treatments under the heavy weight of high-needs and complex healthcare complaints.
In the midst of all this, pharmacies are offering more services. They are stepping into the gaps left by GP clinics. Tasmania is a small state, with big, complex healthcare needs and a decentralised population across small towns and hamlets. Recently we have seen a very disjointed rollout of primary healthcare services that has seen the entire focus move from holistic health care to a narrow focus on just chronic health care, in its wake taking whole suites of very loved community healthcare programs with it. The Assistant Minister for Health is in the chamber today; he knows full well the impact this has had in Tasmania. I know he has been lobbied quite heavily not just by myself but by members of his own government. The senators in Tasmania are aghast at what has happened to rural and regional health service programs in Tasmania on his watch, with the gutting of services in Meander Valley and Kentish and other areas throughout Tasmania—preventative health services that kept people, certainly older people, out of hospital, kept them well in their the homes and well in their communities, and that has all ended. So that has not been good.
Communities have been outraged by the loss of these services with no real warning, no real replacement and no real understanding by the government of what people in rural Tasmania really want and of the need to keep them happy and living independently in their communities. People have come out in droves to public meetings across Tasmania, lobbying their state and federal members and senators, demanding a return of funding to services that they dearly want—and that anecdotal evidence suggests really worked. But we have not seen any movement or any funding returned to these vital services—just a cold shoulder from this government. This government seems determined to rule from its short sighted platform in the inner city rather than listening to voices in regional areas. I certainly hope this appointment of a rural health commissioner turns that around.
What is enlightening around this new role is the plan to define what it means to practice rural generalist medicine. In 2014 at the World Summit on Rural Generalist Medicine in Cairns a definition was decided upon:
We define Rural Generalist Medicine as the provision of a broad scope of medical care by a doctor in the rural context that encompasses the following:
•Comprehensive primary care for individuals, families and communities
•Hospital in-patient care and/or related secondary medical care in the institutional, home or ambulatory setting
•Emergency care
•Extended and evolving service in one or more areas of focused cognitive and/or procedural practice as required to sustain needed health services locally among a network of colleagues
•A population health approach that is relevant to the community—
and the minister should listen to that, because that is what we used to have, and—
•Working as part of a multi-professional and multi-disciplinary team of colleagues, both local and distant, to provide services within a 'system of care' that is aligned and responsive to community needs.
Unfortunately, some of those were covered under the previous system and have now been cut by this government. All those points will be an excellent starting point for the new commissioner to really double down on rural healthcare provision across the broad range of service areas, and I certainly hope we can see the commissioner recommend measures that will replace what Tasmania has lost in recent months under this government.
I cannot wait to see the yearly reporting from the new commissioner. Medicare Local, or Primary Health Tasmania as it is now, has our healthcare position in Tasmania at a place where we see Tasmania's mortality rates sitting higher than anywhere else in Australia: cancer, heart disease, organic mental disorders, injury and poisoning, cerebrovascular disease, chronic lower respiratory diseases, diabetes, other forms of heart disease, and arterial, arterioles and capillary disease all take far more of my fellow Tasmanian's lives each year than anywhere else in this country. This is devastating for my state, especially when there is a chance that earlier interventions, education, supports and preventative programs could have made a dramatic difference to these outcomes.
Today, Labor is backing this legislation in the hope that it is a first step to working on a long-term plan to really get back to basics for rural health care. It is a starting point; it is not perfect, but it is a starting point with an end point of 2020. We would prefer to see it reviewed rather than ended, so that when we take government one day—after the next election, hopefully—we will have a plan that is substantial and robust and ready to tackle the issues that rural Tasmanians and regional Australians need to be tackled.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:19): I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. The bill is fulfilling a commitment that we made prior to the 2016 election. The Liberal-National government committed to establishing Australia's first National Rural Health Commissioner to provide an independent, statutory champion for rural Australians and their health. The role of the commissioner will be to work with communities across regional, rural and remote areas around this country as well as the health sector, universities and specialist training colleges. The commissioner will be required to work across all three levels of government to improve policies for rural health and to create better access to health services for all Australians, regardless of where they live.
Life in regional, rural and remote communities is very different from life in capital cities. Unfortunately, most of the Australian population is based in capital cities and most people are very insulated from what might happen outside those capital city limits. Again, unfortunately, most of the representatives in this place also live in, and represent people from, those capital cities. That is why it takes a strong voice from those rural and regional communities to ensure their needs are not forgotten or swept under the carpet.
That is why it is very good to have a representative at the dispatch box in this place like the member for Lyne, who is the federal Assistant Minister for Health. The member for Lyne visited my electorate earlier this month, and we went to the James Cook University rural clinical school in Mackay. That visit gave the assistant minister an opportunity to see firsthand the experiences on offer for medical students under the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program. This Liberal-National government, the Turnbull-Joyce government, has continued to invest in this training program because it helps to address some of the disadvantage experienced by people living outside of capital cities.
We know that Australians who live in the bush generally experience poorer health outcomes compared to Australians who live in capital cities. If we are to address that very, very big issue of disparity in health outcomes between city Australians and country Australians then we need to ensure we have the right number of health professionals in the right areas but, first and foremost, we need to invest in our future workforce. That is exactly what James Cook University are doing with the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program. They are encouraging students to undertake their training in areas where their skills are needed the most, enabling students to see the unique health challenges faced by Australians living in those rural, regional and remote areas. It is fantastic to see that more and more of our young people are choosing to pursue their careers in health and train in regional locations.
When young students are studying at university and training, as the member for Lyne knows very well, being a gastroenterologist, it takes a very long time. It is a time in the life of a health professional in training when, as a young student, just out of university, they are meeting future partners, they are settling down, perhaps they are buying a first house—all of those things that are planting roots in a community. They might even be starting a family. Having young health professionals set down those roots in a regional community or a rural community can be the start of a lifelong relationship with the community which can be rewarding for both the health professional and especially for the health of that regional or rural community.
When James Cook University started the medical undergraduate program that they have now back in 2000, there were 64 first-year students. Prior to that course being available, North Queensland students were forced to travel more than 1,000 kilometres, in some cases more than 1,500 kilometres, from their home to Brisbane or even further south if they wanted to undertake medical studies. Unfortunately, what ended up happening was that those students who came from places like Mackay, Proserpine, the Burdekin, Bowen, Townsville, Innisfail, Ingham, Cairns and all around were going to the capital cities and that is where they were staying—they were doing their training there, they were setting down all of those roots. Last year the number of students enrolled across the six-year course at James Cook University had grown to 1,170, and last year 38 students undertook a long-term placement in Mackay, my home town, with a further 115 undertaking short-term placements in our region under the Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program.
This program is effectively keeping young health professionals in regional communities where their future skills will be most needed. The dramatic improvement to health outcomes that such a program can provide are examples of why a special focus must be placed on health policy for regional, rural and remote communities. The National Rural Health Commissioner that this bill seeks to establish will develop a national rural generalist pathway as their first priority. An initial part of the role will be to work with the health sector and training providers to define exactly what it means to be a rural generalist. It is very different from what we have in the cities. Rural generalists are supposed to be not just a jack-of-all-trades but a master of them all. It is going to be the responsibility of the commissioner to ensure that adequate incentives are applied to encourage young health professionals along the training pathway to become a rural generalist and also to ensure that potential obstacles are identified and that we remove them, get them out of the way so that these people can get in these positions as soon as possible. Rural generalists will require additional skill sets, and it is appropriate that their remuneration reflects those skills and the cost and effort that is required to obtain them.
The health of people living in regional, rural and remote communities is dependent upon the expertise and the commitment of our rural health workforce. Addressing the distribution of that workforce is a key priority. We need to ensure opportunities exist for rural medical students to train and live locally and for capital city students to experience the benefits of living and working beyond the major capital cities. The commissioner will work across all sectors to champion the cause of rural practice. More broadly speaking, the commissioner will be required to undertake extensive consultation with various stakeholders. Through that consultation, the commissioner will be able to identify where gaps in the system may appear and where a more focused policy might provide the greatest improvement in health outcomes.
In regional, rural and remote communities, there are particular difficulties faced in nursing, dental health, Indigenous health, mental health, midwifery and allied health needs. During the assistant minister's visit to Mackay, he also met with a group of women who established what is known as the Nude Lunch in Mackay. I am going this year but, fear not, the name is not indicative of a dress standard requirement. The event is called the Nude Lunch because it is intended to 'expose' ovarian cancer. They raised $40,000 in their first year, as a fledgling event, and it is set to become an even bigger and better event in the years to come. One of the main drivers of the Nude Lunch is Trudy Crowley, an inspiring woman who has been diagnosed with ovarian cancer and is committed to providing better support for women in North Queensland, and all over Australia, who are diagnosed with that terrible affliction, ovarian cancer. Currently, there is limited support throughout North Queensland, including my home town, and I believe services are ineffective due to a lack of coordination and communication. It is easy for women in regional communities to feel alone and isolated under these difficult circumstances. They are often far removed from specialist care and have a limited support network—or are not aware of it—of people who have been through the same experience and who are able to provide advice and support. Having to travel more than 1,000 kilometres, often leaving family and loved ones behind, to see a specialist in the capital city is just one more stress placed on women in regional, rural and remote communities that does not apply in the capital cities.
There are also health issues that are more prevalent in regional communities, such as mental health. Ten years ago, Mackay, sadly, had a suicide cluster where a number of young people committed suicide in a short space of time and a report on suicide listed Mackay as having the second highest suicide rate in the nation. On that list, a clear trend emerged: the further a community was from a capital city, the higher the suicide rate appeared. As devastating as suicide can be on family and friends, it has a rippling impact on small communities, where most people know who the victim is or are friends with someone who knows or friends with the family.
In 2010 I made a commitment to address the particular issue of mental health and youth suicide—I did so in my maiden speech, actually. I said I was going to fight for a headspace youth mental health centre in Mackay and I have to say that centre, now delivered, is providing an amazing service across the Mackay region. I believe these centres are indispensable in our regional areas.
It is critical that the government accepts the differences between regional communities and capital cities and addresses those differences and the issues that arise because of those differences. This bill ensures a process will exist to address the inequalities in health outcomes across that city/country divide. The then Minister for Rural Health, Senator Nash, announced the Liberal-National government's decision to establish the commissioner during the 2016 election campaign. That commitment is being met with $4.4 million made available to establish the commissioner through to the end of June 2020. By the end of that term, the functions of the commissioner will have been completed. The commissioner will be an independent statutory officer with some duties directed by the minister responsible for rural health, and I assume that will be the member for Lyne.
In addition to creating and funding the role of commissioner, this bill will also repeal redundant legislation. Sections 3GC and 19AD of the Health Insurance Act 1973 will be repealed. These repeals were approved by the Prime Minister in 2015, and they were measures included in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. While that particular bill was passed by the House, it was not debated in the Senate, due to the calling of the 2016 election. Specifically, the repeal of Section 3GC will abolish the Medical Training Review Panel. There is no net loss resulting from this repeal, because the service overlaps with the function of the National Medical Training Advisory Network; and the network has agreed to assume the functions of the panel and included them in the agreed terms of reference. An added bonus of this bill is getting rid of bureaucratic double up. The legislative instrument, by which the panel was created, expired at the end of June last year, and so this particular repeal is simply removing redundant legislation.
Section 19AD, which this bill also seeks to repeal, was designed to produce a report every five years on the operation of various sections of the Act, including 3GA, 3GC and 19AA. The report was to identify any unintended consequences arising from those sections and the regulatory burden of Medicare provider number legislation. The three reports produced so far have not identified any areas of concern, and the view expressed in the last report was that the legislation was well settled. Importantly, the repeal of Section 19AD will not affect any medical practitioner who is subject to the legislation and will not affect the operation of any current workforce or training programs. However, the repeal will remove the burden of continually reviewing the operation of legislation that is already well settled, saving taxpayers money and making a lot less work for bureaucrats—work that could be put into other areas for the effective delivery of health.
Rural, regional and remote Australia is the heart and soul of this country, providing so much in productivity and economic benefit, of which few people in the city are aware. Regional and rural communities put food on the table; they put clothes on our back. And yet a national survey in 2012 found that three-quarters of year 6 students thought cotton socks came from animals and a quarter of students thought yoghurt grew on trees. Remote communities provide the nation's wealth through mining and exports, and yet activists in the cities want to shut down the very industries that provide jobs and the taxes they want the government to spend.
There is a disconnect between cities and the real world. It is almost as if out of sight is out of mind. We cannot allow the health of our rural Australians to be left out of sight and out of mind. When the regions are so important to the health of the nation and the health of our economy, the very least we can do is to ensure the health of those living in the rural, regional and remote communities is good enough for them to continue to live there and continue to do the hard work for this country. This bill establishes a means by which rural health is put in plain sight and firmly placed into the minds of government. This bill creates a role with that purpose, and the result of this role will be better health outcomes for all Australian, regardless of which side of the city-country divide they find themselves.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:34): I wholeheartedly support the intention of this bill and the creation of a National Rural Health Commissioner. Any member of this place, and particularly the members who represent nonmetropolitan Australia, would know that access to health care for Australians who live in regional areas is significantly worse than for those who live in the cities. As the minister mentioned in his second reading speech, rural and remote Australians have a shorter life expectancy, generally have lower incomes, are older than their city counterparts, experience higher rates of chronic disease and face higher risk factors, such as smoking, alcohol abuse and obesity. We have greater challenges accessing health and mental health services based on our isolation.
In December 2015 the Regional Australia Institute released figures showing that collectively Australia's regions account for approximately one-third of our total economic output. Their report said:
… were it not for the regions, Australia's economy today would only be the size that it was in 1997 and Australia would no longer rank amongst the world's largest economies.
We are prosperous nation because of regional Australia. And yet, despite this stunning fact and the fact that one-third of our country's population lives outside of the major cities, the regions are being left behind on a wide range of issues when it comes to policy development. Nowhere is this felt more than in health. If you get sick in a regional area, you might be lucky to have a hospital in your nearest town or you might face a drive of an hour or more to a general practice clinic, where you wait for an ambulance to drive you to a major hospital. In the really remote areas, you may have to rely on the Royal Flying Doctor Service.
It is incredibly difficult to get doctors to work in rural and regional areas. Those who do so sometimes are the only doctor in town and that leads to intense pressure and responsibility. We need to implement policies to encourage doctors to work in the regions and to ensure that those doctors are supported in their endeavours to serve their communities. It is a devastating fact that regional and rural Australia have higher rates of suicide than metropolitan Australia. It is even more heartbreaking that doctors and medical professionals are suiciding at a rate more than double other professions. This is not limited to the regions; this is across the board.
I have seen firsthand how the pressures of being a doctor in regional and rural Australia can affect a community. I recently sat down with doctors from Strathalbyn, a township of 6,000 people with a small hospital. Until recently the local doctors had performed an after-hours on-call service. It was a great service for the community. In my discussions with the doctors it was apparent that the demands of being on that 24-hour roster were just far too great. I spoke to one doctor who told me that he would get called in so often that he would have no sleep and would need to work 24 hours straight, because the following day he had to see his patients in his practice. This presents a great danger to both patients and the doctors. Mistakes are made. This occurred in a town with a population of 6,000 people and a number of general practitioners. In rural towns far from major cities the effect would be magnified.
The issues in rural health extend to education and training. Australia is seeing a record number of medical students graduating from university. This is fantastic, but there is a constant battle getting new graduates to move out to regional areas. The latest data from the Medical Schools Outcomes Database survey reported that 76 per cent of domestic graduates are living in capital cities. If you expand the definition to include a major urban area, that figure increases to 84 per cent. Eighty-four per cent of Australian graduates live in a capital city or a major urban area, while a third of Australians live in a regional or remote area.
I believe that we need to put measures in place to entice medical students to look for jobs in regional and rural areas. I do not believe that we need more medical schools; rather, we need to take a strong, hard look at the schools in what they are doing to implement an outreach training into the regions. I believe that if we can encourage more young people from the country to pursue a career in medicine, it is more likely that they will want to return home to their community to practice. The current minimum intake is 25 per cent of students from a rural background. That is a good start, but I support the Australian Medical Association's stance on lifting the benchmark to at least 30 per cent of all students. It is more than offering a place to a young person; it is also about connecting them to rural health from the beginning of their degree. It is about connecting them with rural health practitioners from the beginning of their degree so that potential doctors can build relationships and create opportunities in regional Australia and can see where their career could take them. Currently just 25 per cent of medical students are required to undertake at least one year of clinical training in a rural area. I would like to see a more ambitious stance to be taken, that every Australian medical student be required to undertake a clinical placement in a regional or rural area.
I would like to take this opportunity to speak about some issues that are particular to my electorate of Mayo. In Mayo access to health care is the most common issue raised with me by constituents. For those who are unaware, Mayo stretches from the southern townships of the Barossa Valley throughout the Adelaide Hills and the Fleurieu Peninsula out to the Lower Lakes, towards the east and across and includes Kangaroo Island. The majority of Mayo is regional. The challenges in accessing health services reflect our regional status. I would also say that on a per capita basis Mayo has the oldest population in South Australia. So we have a very old population as well as a regional population.
In Mount Barker the local hospital has recently installed a service that sees a doctor overnight. This hospital has a catchment area of 70,000 people, and it is the closest hospital for people who live 20 kilometres north or east of Mount Barker. Until two weeks ago, if you were sick in the middle of the night there would be no doctor to meet you when you arrived. You would be sent down to the city. For some people that is well over an hour's drive. So I remain ever grateful to the state minister, Minister Jack Snelling, for listening to my plea on behalf of my community and months of advocacy in order for us to have an overnight doctor.
There is still no renal dialysis service in the Adelaide Hills. Again, this is an ageing population. It is the oldest electorate in South Australia and we do not have renal dialysis in one of our major centres. This means that over 1,500 trips are made to the city annually by patients so they can receive treatment. This is an area with limited public transport options, and some people are choosing to forego treatment because of the burden it is placing on their families. There are no Medicare rebatable machines in the Adelaide Hills region. This is another issue that only regional and rural Australia faces. This means that unless a patient has capacity to pay the $300, they must travel to a metropolitan area. If we had a Medicare rebatable machine it is estimated that more than 20 people a day would use it. That is how great the need is.
The Gumeracha Medical Practice is fighting for funding since the introduction of the Modified Monash Model in July 2015. In a town of just 1,000 people, the practice extends its services right across the region, with a catchment of almost 7,000 people. Under the modified Monash service the practice has lost funding, as it is deemed to be within 20 kilometres of a town of 50,000 people. This arbitrary ruling does not take into account a myriad of factors, including winding and poorly lit roads and a lack of public transport options. Gumeracha sits at the top of the escarpment of the Mount Lofty ranges and travel to the city is not an easy thing. I have written to the minister regarding this matter and I intend to continue to advocate on behalf of the Gumeracha Medical Practice. They offer services far beyond what would be expected of a small country town GP clinic, including providing training opportunities for 40 general practice registrars since 2003. They are struggling to maintain these services with reduced funding. It is one of the only medical practices in the region that offers 24-hour care. It would be another blow to our regional community if they were forced to scale back.
At the southern end of my electorate is a township called Yankalilla. The Fleurieu Family Practice is also struggling to continue its services after it was informed that its after-hours services funding was being withdrawn. The practice is the only medical facility on the west coast of the Fleurieu Peninsula, which covers an area of approximately 450 square kilometres. It services a population of 4,700 people, but that swells in the summertime to over 16,000 people. In the last two years there have been over 309 emergency presentations at that practice, such as presentations for lacerations, anaphylaxis or chest pains.
Should the clinic be forced to stop its after-hours services, some patients would have no choice but to drive south over 30 kilometres to the Victor Harbor hospital or north more than 50 kilometres to the Noarlunga Hospital. In both directions, there is no public transport. I have been talking about primary health care, but I would also like to talk about mental health services in the region. My whole electorate does not have a headspace. Mental health services in regional Australia are woeful.
These are just some of the examples I have given you of regional health centres and the challenges they face on a daily basis. I have small regional communities with somewhat concentrated population hubs, and I can only imagine how difficult it must be to deliver rural health services in areas where the population is far more remote. Honestly, I shudder to think of the challenges remote communities experience.
I am sure that these issues that I have raised are familiar to anyone who services a regional electorate. I welcome any move by the government to address the issues of health in the regions, but I question whether the introduction of the National Rural Health Commissioner should have been stronger. I note with interest that the commissioner is only being appointed for a period of two years—they will really just get their feet under the desk. And, while there is an option to extend the appointment until 2020, issues in rural health in regional Australia are not short term. They require long-term thinking and engagement with the communities in order for us to properly address the issues.
The commissioner has been appointed to develop increased access to training for doctors in regional and rural Australia, to enhance policy and to promote careers in rural health. This is excellent, but it is also limiting. As I have outlined, many Australians in regions are less financially solvent than their city counterparts, and they are older and medical services are more expensive. In my area, there is no bulk-billing. It is impossible to get in to see a doctor and be bulk-billed. Very often, people pay upwards of $50 in a gap, so I would like to see the commissioner undertake a role to reduce health costs and to closely examine health costs that people in regional Australia experience compared to our metro counterparts.
In closing, I do support this bill. Regional and rural health access is important, and it is an issue that I feel has long been overlooked by the parliament. You should not have second-class health care just because you are living in regional Australia. I believe that the powers of the commissioner could go further, but I am pleased to see that the government is recognising the challenge faced by those of us who live and work in our productive regions—our regions that are carrying the prosperity of this nation. This is a first step. I applaud the government for this step, but this is a first step with much, much more to do. Thank you.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (16:47): I rise to support very strongly the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. The city of Toowoomba in my electorate of Groom is a significant health services centre for the regional areas of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. We have excellent health and allied health services and facilities, including the Toowoomba base hospital, St Vincent's hospital, St Andrew's hospital, other professional medical centres, numerous specialists and, most particularly, a wide range of general practitioners who are dedicated to servicing their patients and our community.
The health outcomes of regional and rural Australians, as we have heard during this debate, are quite often diminished due to their remoteness and reduced access to health services. But our health sector in Toowoomba not only supports local residents but also steps up to its responsibility in servicing these far-flung communities throughout Queensland and New South Wales of which I speak. Toowoomba based health professionals cannot, however, do that on their own. Our region recognises that addressing the distribution of a professional and dedicated health workforce in regional, rural and remote areas—in our case, southern Queensland and northern New South Wales; our larger catchment area, if you like—is a very high key priority.
As the Assistant Minister for Health said in introducing this bill, its aims include: opportunities for regional and rural medical students to train and live locally and for other students from elsewhere to experience the benefits of living and working beyond the major cities; the new commissioner working with communities, the health sector, universities, specialist training colleges and across all levels of government to improve rural health policies and to champion the cause of rural practice; the development of a national rural generalist pathway that recognises the extra skills needed, the longer working hours and the required courage for general practitioners in these rural areas to meet all kinds of challenges; and also giving consideration to the nursing, dental health, Indigenous health, mental health, midwifery and allied health needs in these rural and remote areas.
The bill is therefore a very important step forward for regional, rural and remote health throughout Australia, particularly in my electorate of Groom and, might I say, the wider electorate of Maranoa—represented by my good friend and colleague David Littleproud—which forms part of the catchment area of the health services provided in our region, especially in Toowoomba.
The coalition government recognises the value of our rural communities, the special place they hold in this country, the enormous national wealth that they generate for all Australians and the special place that they have in our history and culture as well. People living in these communities, such as in my electorate and regional Queensland, make an enormous contribution to our national economy and to our character, as I said. Access to a high-quality standard of health care is therefore what they deserve and are entitled to expect. As I said, often, though, we know that that is not the case—that they often receive services that are not quite up to par with those received in a metropolitan area. The key is to recruit and retain more doctors and health professionals outside of those major cities, and that certainly, I am pleased to note, will be the focus of the National Rural Health Commissioner in this move led by our government.
In Toowoomba I am so very proud of: Griffith University's Queensland rural medical education stream, which is based in our city and led by a good friend of mine, Professor Scott Kitchener; the University of Queensland's Toowoomba Rural Clinical School; the University of Southern Queensland's Bachelor of Nursing program, based in Toowoomba; and the focus of the Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service on rural medical needs throughout our region.
I note in relation to Griffith University, the University of Queensland and the University of Southern Queensland that I have had the good fortune to meet and work with senior academic leaders, including Professor Janet Verbyla, a senior deputy vice-chancellor at the university of Southern Queensland and at present the interim vice-chancellor of USQ, which is based in Toowoomba. She and her colleagues get this. She and her colleagues understand that academia needs to join with those in practice to ensure the provision and planning of medical and health services throughout these regions in the years to come.
I also note the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network led again by a good friend of mine, Chairman John Minz, and CEO Simone Finch. It was the PHN which stood with me to make an announcement on behalf of Greg Hunt, the health minister, at Sunrise Way in Toowoomba just last Friday. Sunrise Way is a drug and alcohol rehabilitation service. From an allied health perspective, it was tremendous to stand with the leaders of the PHN to announce $5.5 million of funding for Sunrise Way and a couple of other local agencies to implement initiatives under the coalition government's ice strategy, announced at the last election just last year. That is the sort of focus we have in our community and we simply want to maintain in our community. I am very much looking forward to the role of the National Rural Health Commissioner supporting that move going forward.
I commit myself to continuing to work with all of them to champion the incredible and rewarding opportunities of a career in rural medicine. I have had the great fortune and honour to be a guest lecturer in some of these programs, particularly at Griffith University's Queensland rural medical education service in Toowoomba, to talk to students about life in regional communities and the risks in agricultural industries they should be aware of. I have been able to share my experience as that is the sector from which I come and emphasise to them that, should they take up opportunities in rural and remote areas, not only will they be able to ply their trade to become medical and healthcare professionals but they will take up a position in those communities as a respected community leader alongside other regional community leaders. I say to those students and to those we need to attract and train in the future: we need to hear from you, we need to listen to you and we need to take the necessary steps in our health system to ensure that it works better for you, regional communities and patients throughout our region now and those you will hopefully encounter in your professional lives in the years to come.
That is what this bill ensures significant progress towards. That is why I very much welcome and look forward to working with the National Rural Health Commissioner in relation to the needs of patients now and in the future throughout the electorate of Groom.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:57): I rise today in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill. I applaud Dr David Gillespie for having the courage to put this bill forward with insight, common sense and practicality. We promised the people of regional, rural and remote Australia that we would deliver and champion better health services. Through this bill we will be taking the first steps to deliver on this promise. The rural health groups of my electorate of Capricornia have welcomed the announcement and look forward to working with the commissioner to deliver better services. In particular, I support this bill because: firstly, it aims to bridge the gap in regional health services; secondly, it is practical in approach by being collaborative with local experts who live and breathe regional health daily; and, finally, it aims to take real measures to attract rural generalists to the regions that most need them through an incentive program.
The tyranny of distance will always be a challenge for regional Australia. The people of regional Australia already endure fewer services, reduced communication facilities, lower incomes and fewer job opportunities. When it comes to health, the facts speak for themselves. The per-capita ratio of doctors working in Australia's major cities compared to regional and remote areas varies considerably. In 2011, the per-capita ratio of GPs to population in major cities was double that of remote areas and considerably higher than the ratio of GPs in regional areas.
Health outcomes for people of regional Australia mean higher rates of death than the cities. That is mothers, fathers and children dying because they do not have the same access to health care. They are dying at higher rates from coronary heart disease, other circulatory diseases, motor vehicle accidents and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eighty-five percent of Australia's specialists work in major cities. In regional areas, the ratio of specialists per capita is half that of major cities. In remote areas, the number of specialists is comparable to Third World countries. It is high time that we seek to address this divide by taking real and practical measures to review health services. Through the commissioner, the Turnbull-Joyce government is bridging this gap.
This bill and the National Rural Health Commissioner mandate must be passed. We must work to bring doctors to the regions instead of regional patients to the doctors. This is not just in the pursuit of equity for all Australians. The cost of seeing a doctor for many rural, regional and remote people has a number of financial implications for the individual and for the government. On a recent trip to the north of my electorate, I had the good fortune to be shown firsthand the impractical realities of having to travel just to see the doctor. Most people living in major cities would baulk and cry foul at the idea of having to travel hundreds of kilometres just to see a GP, let alone a specialist. This is the daily reality for people in the country. Many farms are multigenerational. When someone gets sick, it is not just the patient who suffers. Family members often need to take time off work to get the patient to a medical practitioner. When it is a sick child, that is additional time away from school, putting them further behind in educational advancement. This is time and money away from their dependants and their work. Getting doctors to where they are needed not only ensures that regional Australians get the healthcare most take for granted, it means less time away for supporting staff members, which improves the productivity of the communities they live in. Living remotely is tough enough—we know the rate of suicide is higher than in cities, we know that remote and rural families are more financially susceptible to weather incidents, and we know that people in rural areas travel further on country roads. These factors combine to create additional health concerns for people in rural, remote and regional communities.
Most importantly, the bill will provide unbiased expertise, working with the professionals who deal with remote, regional and rural health on a daily basis. This is exactly the type of collaboration that will deliver real outcomes for the people living in these communities. This is not about party politics and pointscoring; this is about giving people in regional Australia a fair go when it comes to health. The bill proposes an independent body that will operate independently, working with all sectors of the government and with rural health providers. In my discussions with local medical experts, I have been informed that we need to prepare regions for the medical needs of a future population. We need better mental health services, better aged-care services and easier access to generalist health care. By addressing these issues with the community, the commissioner will be working directly at the coalface of regional health and finding real solutions that benefit the families of regional Australia. This collaboration will be the key to success.
In my electorate of Capricornia, we have the capacity to deliver the training and programs required. Universities, local and state governments all have a role to play in addressing the issue of regional health. Rockhampton is perfectly positioned to become a leader in training doctors to prepare them for the challenges of working in the bush while providing a support network in a regional area for those working in the field.
Finally, there is an absolute need to incentivise rural generalists. Doctors working in regional, remote and rural areas work longer, have less access to peer support and, due to living regionally, have less access to services enjoyed by their city counterparts. The development of the national rural generalist pathway will improve access to training for doctors in rural, regional and remote Australia and will recognise the unique combination of skills required for the role of a rural generalist. It is not an easy task for a young graduate doctor heading for regional Australia. They will be isolated from their peers and isolated from their families. They will deal with matters that they did not expect, and they will be doing so without the support of a large medical team. If we realistically expect these doctors to head out into the country, then we need to expect them to receive some form of compensation. A by-product of this bill may be improved attention to health in regional areas. Decent health care will make it easier to attract other professionals to the regions, in turn driving demand for additional services.
Australia faces considerable challenges in meeting the health needs of all Australians. We have a wonderful, diverse and widespread land, but this comes at a cost to those building our economy from outside the city centres. The commissioner will work with rural, regional and remote communities, the health sector, universities, specialist training colleges and across all levels of government to improve rural health policies. I support better health outcomes for rural, regional and remote Australia. I commend the work that has gone into the role of the National Rural Health Commissioner and the national rural health pathway. It is time that we bridge the gap in health care.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (17:05): I am absolutely delighted to support this bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017, and to second the comments from the various speakers. However, in doing so I would like to say that, while it is a good first step, it does not go nearly far enough. In addressing my comments to that, I would like to add to the context that I acknowledge the minister and his staff for the open way they have worked with this bill. I am going to be moving some amendments a little bit later, but I acknowledge the great communication that we have had together, so thank you for that.
I would like to stress that health is one of the fundamentally important aspects of our community. In my electorate, together with transport, telecommunications and education, health is one of the most commonly addressed issues that I hear when I go around my community. So when we get a bill like this in front of us, I am really optimistic that the government have actually understood the complexity of health and how it is an integrated issue that we need to address. Sadly, it is not only about GPs. I would like to talk about my electorate and about how important an integrated approach to regional health is. And, while doctors are really important, they are only one part of what is a system. For many, many people, their place of health and health care is not the doctor; it might be their home—it is the parents, it is the mother looking after the kids, teaching the children about hygiene and how to have exercise and how to be safe. For me, the home—along with the parents—is a fundamental place for health care.
And once we have the home looked after and we have educated our families and our parents well, the next circle of influence around health is our schools. I am really pleased that the Victorian government is doing some fantastic work on trialling doctors in schools and working in that context—a great approach.
And the next circle out from our schools is our communities. In country areas, it is not only community health that is important; the other community workers play a really important part. Aged-care workers, childcare workers, local government workers and health inspectors—what an important role they play in our health.
And then we have our workforce. Again, our OHS people play a really important role in keeping us safe at work.
We also have the hospitals. The emergency service at the hospital is the most obvious place we go to when we think about health. And then, of course, we have our GPs and specialists.
If you can imagine that as a system, everything needs to be in balance if we are going to do what needs to be done to improve the overall health of our community. We have heard all the speakers today, including the minister, say how poorly our rural communities are doing with health. So while I welcome the support for GPs it makes me really sad that we have missed the opportunity to do so much more. I acknowledge that this was an election commitment—and it is important that we fulfil election commitments—but I really do feel that it lacks ambition. So I am looking forward to now working with the minister and his advisers and saying: 'A tick for this. Now let's see if we can get the whole system to work and do a much better job of improving health for rural people.'
I will now take the opportunity to talk a little bit about what happens in my electorate with health. I want to take a few minutes to call out to the many providers. I have talked about the home and the family, and I have talked about community health. But what I really want to do in this speech today is acknowledge the work of the institutions. They are the focal point that really needs a lot of attention and a lot of help. We constantly talk about government, but it is the institutions that we are looking to for funding to allow them to do their job. I want to acknowledge Albury Wodonga Health, a fantastic cross-border initiative. I do not know if you can possibly imagine the impact it has had on our community to have Albury and Wodonga work together, the cross-border approach that we have now got, and the connectivity that is happening because we have one board and everything working together—the cancer centre, the babies and the emergency health. So I want to give a bit of a shout-out to Albury Wodonga Health for the fabulous work you do there.
And I want to link it to this legislation. Albury Wodonga Health does not only exist as a hospital; it also does training. Albury Wodonga Health has a relationship with the University of New South Wales. The student doctors do their rural work year in Albury-Wodonga. That is such an important aspect of the training because it gives all those student doctors who are city based or who have gone to the city for training a chance to work in a rural community and get a sense of how wonderful it is to work there. I really want to thank all those people who have done the work to make that training centre there work so well. I know that all the staff there go so far beyond the call of duty to make it such a rich experience for doctors doing their training. And to all the doctors who come from other places to do that year of training in Albury-Wodonga: we love having you. We want to see more of you. We really do hope that the experience is so rich and rewarding that you will put your roots down and come and live in our community.
Similarly, we have Northeast Health Wangaratta. The Wangaratta Hospital does a fantastic job of providing hospital and related services, and it also does doctor training. Through their relationship with the Department of Rural Health at the University of Melbourne they do fantastic work. They get the people from the University of Melbourne to come up and do their training in Wangaratta and get some amazing exposure to top-quality medical specialists and ways of working. So I give a shout-out to Albury Wodonga Health and Northeast Health Wangaratta for the training you do for our doctors.
I will be looking forward to working with the commissioner and saying: 'Here are some models that are working really well. How can we replicate them in other areas and finesse them a little bit where appropriate?' I just want to take a moment to talk about what happens in Wangaratta. It is an amazing example of the creativity and innovation that is coming out of our rural hospitals and related training. In Wangaratta we have telehealth. Through the internet, with high quality video services, some of the smaller hospitals can link into Wangaratta. You might be in Corryong or Mansfield; over the weekend, you can link into specialist services in Wangaratta via the internet and have an immediate diagnosis done—and if you need extra services it is all there. That has made such a difference to our smaller hospitals. I am so pleased, and I really want to congratulate Wangaratta for taking that initiative. What a fantastic job it has done, and what a service it provides to our communities.
But this system approach that I have been talking about works well because we have a dedicated internet service. Ideally, we would have access to quality internet services everywhere in Australia, particularly in rural Australia. Sadly, that is not the case—and I am not even hopeful that the NBN service will deliver the expertise we need. But if we do get it, it will absolutely revolutionise the ability of our hospitals, our GPs and our medical professionals to provide services to people back into the other parts of the system—the homes, schools, workplaces and other areas where health and healing are practised.
In acknowledging those two major providers in my electorate I also want to do a call-out for two other specialist health providers. The Upper Murray Health and Community Service, which works in Corryong and Walwa, is a multipurpose service. Multipurpose services are no longer popular. It is such a pity. In our rural communities they provide health and aged care, and they employ doctors. In Corryong, they employ doctors to come and do the health and community work that we need doing. The model of funding has not changed in years, and we absolutely need to review that multipurpose service funding and reintroduce a 21st century approach, because hospitals like Corryong provide such a service in my community and, if we cannot get the funding right and they close, we will have no doctors there, because the only doctors in Corryong are the multipurpose employed ones. So, if we do not have the MPS providing the service, that whole community will be bereft.
In a similar way, I would like to acknowledge Alpine Health. Alpine Health is another MPS, and it works in Mount Beauty, Bright and Myrtleford. That MPS is particularly noteworthy, because of the health promotion work that it does. It provides that extension to the community, families, workplaces and community health and does such a good job in actually keeping people out of hospitals and out of our GP services through its health promotion.
One of the things that I am really disappointed about in this legislation is that we do not talk about health promotion. We have not talked about how stopping people getting ill is a really important part of the whole role. I am just putting it out there that it is an area of work that I think the government could do a huge amount of work in and would save us so much money further down the line. I want to say that health is a complicated system and this bit of legislation only addresses a small part of it—a very important part, which is our doctors and GPs, but we have a lot more work to do to make sure that the system actually works better in rural and regional areas.
I will turn my thoughts for a moment to some of the problems that I see with this legislation and what I would like to see happen. One of the things the minister said in his second reading speech was that this was going to be an independent position. Sadly, I do not accept that, if you put a person working in a health department, they will be independent. I do not see how that is going to happen. I cannot see the arm's length there that is going to be engaged. I cannot see how this position is going to actually have the ability to consult widely. You could spend your whole two years just doing consultation. So that idea of an expert panel that this position can work to would be really important.
At the moment, as the legislation stands, this position does not report to parliament—in fact, it does in a way. The legislation says that the commissioner has to report every year on what they are doing, but the final report goes to the minister. It is my belief that the final report should come to parliament. I have great respect for this current minister who is bringing this legislation to the parliament, but, sadly, he might not be the minister in two years time, so we have to make sure that the report actually comes to parliament and the parliament gets a chance to know what the commissioner is doing and that they are in fact, doing what they have been set out to do.
My amendments set out to make the position more transparent by requiring the minister to table the final report within five sitting days. It is to ensure that rural and regional communities are consulted by including them in the bill rather than assuming that they will be in the other stakeholder group. I cannot quite see how the family, the home and the schools are going to be consulted in this process, and it is really important that they are.
I also include in one of my amendments a role for the commissioner to consider the affordability of health services, particularly addressing the problem of no-gap bulk-billing. Just to talk about bulk-billing, it is such a problem in my community that we do not have doctors who bulk-bill in many of my smaller rural communities. The doctors say, 'We can't afford it,' on one hand, but they also say, 'We do it,' and they do it as an act of grace if they see the need. To me, you should not be relying on the goodwill of a doctor to be bulk-billed. It should be part and parcel of the function, and we need to do a lot of work on bulk-billing to make sure it is more evenly addressed in rural and regional areas.
In bringing my notes to a close—and, as I said, I will be further addressing this in consideration in detail—I would like to acknowledge what the bill does. It is great that the election commitment is being addressed. I would like to acknowledge the work of the minister and his staffers and thank them for their cooperation. I would like to ask for much greater ambition. I think, as everybody said, we have not got anywhere near resolving the problem. All we have done is picked up on one very small aspect of the problem in the system, and we still need to do a significant amount of more work. I would be very happy to work with the minister to do that and I am very keen that we come back to the House with other pieces of legislation that actually bring a systems approach to this particular issue.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (17:20): I rise to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. I must say I am very pleased with this legislation, because with an electorate like Grey, which is an area a bit bigger than New South Wales, health delivery is certainly one of the core services and it is something that is a challenge at any time. I spent 10 years of my life before I entered this parliament serving on local hospital boards and higher authorities within those organisations, and so I understand many of the issues that confront governments as they try to roll out decent, appropriate health services.
It is vital, I think, that this national parliament recognise that there is a vast difference between rural, regional and remote communities and the places where most Australians live, in the city. In fact, differences in opportunity sometimes are of benefit to the rural dwellers but are often to our disadvantage in areas such as education, aged care, communication needs and particularly health needs. Those differences need to be recognised, and this bill is part of that process. The budget allocation of $4.4 million to the National Rural Health Commissioner has the potential to make a real difference to rural, regional and remote Australia, because the success of Australia will ultimately be determined by how successful regional Australia is.
Last week, though, quite disturbingly—it is not all good news—I attended a public meeting in Quorn, a township of about 1,100 people almost 45 kilometres from Port Augusta. Four hundred of them, or one in three, rolled up to the meeting. Why? Because they are scared that some parts of their medical services are about to cease. Very little has been spent on the Quorn hospital and they are fearful that the South Australian government will use the lack of building currency as an excuse to say it is no longer safe to deliver services.
I can tell you that Quorn is representative of concerns held all over the electorate and all over regional South Australia. Not so long ago, for instance, the Jamestown hospital, which is about 125 kilometres to the south of Quorn, lost its ability to sterilise surgical instruments. The reason was that the steriliser had reached its use-by date and the state government refused to find the $60,000 or so to buy a new one. Jamestown is a can-do community and it does not mind digging in. In not a very long period of time it had raised enough money locally to pay for the unit. But was this enough? No. Country Health, the government's health management team, declared that the room that the steriliser was positioned in is no longer adequate. How hard can we make this process? The room is no longer adequate for the steriliser and SA Country Health refuse to do up the room, so at this stage Jamestown soldiers on without a steriliser and brings in sterilised instruments from Port Pirie, which is about a 45-minute drive away.
At the Quorn meeting local doctor Tony Lian-Lloyd ran through a long list of similar rough funding instruments, if you like, where local ability and facilities had been strangled by the lack of investment. On one spectacular occasion a hospital had a very leaky roof that the government chose not to repair or replace, so the local community rallied to put a new roof on the hospital. This is really quite a serious lack of investment.
The latest offence is in Yorketown on Yorke Peninsula, in the southernmost part of the electorate of Grey. The community have been told that that their surgical facilities are no longer up to scratch and will be terminated. The Yorketown hospital has been operating safely and competently for generations. Despite having qualified doctors and staff capable of continuing the service, people are being asked to attend the Wallaroo hospital, which is 130 kilometres to the north. This is not the Far North; this is some of the most productive agricultural land in South Australia and is quite closely settled. That kind of demand on people is ridiculous. This lack of attention is appalling if real care cannot be offered closer to the residents than that.
It seems apparent that, while the federal government's spending on hospitals is increasing at three per cent above the rate of inflation, country hospitals in South Australia at least are being neglected and starved of resources. We are told the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is the third most expensive building in the world. There are headlines that it is finally ready to use and it will be handed over to taxpayers, who will be paying $1 million a day for the next 30 years for the lease on it. It takes a little bit to get your head around the figures. It seems quite obvious that rural health facilities are being asked to provide the funding shortfall. This is a dereliction of duty by the government. I certainly will be looking to the new Rural Health Commissioner to at least make a case for the protection and improvement of country services.
I look forward to the establishment of the rural generalist pathway. This was an issue that was raised at the Quorn meeting by a number of young doctors. They said we have an uneven situation across Australia and it would be far better if we had one pathway. I hope that will all help make a real difference, but I have been around this game long enough to suspect that it will not make a difference. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that we should be seriously looking at postcode-specific Medicare provider numbers.
I look back to my time on hospital boards in the 1980s and 1990s. It was a time when we had chronic overservicing of GP services in Australia in the cities. It was a time when we were short of doctors in the country but had chronic overservicing in the cities. The government of the day decided to address this by cutting training numbers at universities, so we took in fewer medical students. This eventually drew back the numbers and the overservicing but the foot was kept on the neck of the intake for too long, if you like, and consequently we ended up with a shortage of doctors in Australia, and there are still not enough in the country.
To fill the shortfall we began importing overseas-born and -trained doctors. Nobody should think that this is an exercise in bashing overseas doctors. I tell you that without them our medical system would be on its knees. But we treat them in a different way to the way we treat our own medical students insomuch as, through the powers of our immigration system, we tell them where to go: 'If you want to immigrate to South Australia, you will serve the hospital at Coober Pedy'—or at Kimba, where I live, Ceduna or Quorn—'You will deliver services there for five years. After that we hope you elect to stay.' We do not tell our graduates that. Largely when they come out of university with their qualifications—and they are not easy to obtain; they spend many years training—they can basically work wherever they like.
There are some who say that postcode-specific Medicare provider numbers would be a restraint of trade and would be prohibited by the Constitution. I am not suggesting for one minute that we should tell doctors that they can or cannot set up practice anywhere in Australia; what I am saying is that we should tell them, 'You can only deliver a service here if you want to access the public subsidy,' which is the Medicare provider number. 'If you want to charge full tote odds for your services, go ahead.' I have got no complaint about that at all, but I think the time has come when we have to address this issue.
I am brought to this point by the remarks from the previous member about rewards for doctors. When I am told by some doctors that they are earning in excess of $300,000 and $400,000 a year working in the country—and I do not begrudge them that money, let it be said—I do not think we can actually offer any more carrots, offer more money, and expect that it is going to make a substantial difference to the supply of doctors.
Since my time on hospital boards all those years ago, the provision of backup for doctors in rural areas is far better. They have much better access to locum services, they have much better access to replacements so they can go and get training, they have assistance for training and they have the ability to have a holiday. All of those things are much better now than they were 20 years ago. I do not know what else it is we can do to make it so much more attractive to live and work in the country.
Of course, once you have doctors—and any other profession—there, many times, people actually find that they have been missing out on something and that it is the best lifestyle. But getting them there in the first place is the real difficulty here. I make the comparison: if you go through university, largely funded by the taxpayer, and get a teaching degree or a nursing degree, when you leave university, you will go where the vacancy exists in the system. You do not go off and create a new school or a new hospital for yourself. You will go where you can land a job that is on offer within the system. But we do not do that with our doctors. We do not tell them that the taxpayer is insisting that we need a service at X. They have the ability to go to Y and still access the taxpayer funding through the Medicare system. There is no doubt that this would lead to a fair bit of discussion with the medical industry.
I have spoken about this proposal on a number of occasions, and certainly where there have been doctors present. By and large, I find that rural doctors are very supportive of the proposals that I have put forward. Of course, there would be all kinds of give and take around the edges and, in particular, I think we would have to grandfather all the current doctors and say, 'These rules will not apply to you,' so that it will be a slow change to the system. But they actually understand the real challenges in getting doctors to come and work and practise in the country, including all those normal issues—jobs for their partners, who may be highly trained professionals in areas where there are not jobs and, often, they bring up the case that they might have to send their children away for education. Of course, for all the rest of us who live in the country, that is a reality. I do not see that that should be such an impediment within itself.
But I understand what all those attractions of the city are. My children did three years of senior secondary education in the city to prepare themselves properly for university. If you are training to be a doctor it is a another six or so years at university and then, perhaps, another three or four years after that to get the suitable GP accreditations. You would have lived in the city for 15 to 16 years. It is quite likely that you might find the city much more comfortable and attractive than the country after that amount of time. All of these things I understand, but it does not address the central issue at the bottom of the pile—that is, that we do not have enough doctors in the country.
Currently, in South Australia, over 50 per cent of the doctors in rural South Australia are overseas born and trained. We will stop importing those doctors almost imminently, because the pipeline coming out of the universities now is strong. In fact, we are probably training too many doctors for our future. There is a double-edged sword here. I believe we are heading for greater shortages in the country and we are heading back into overservicing in the cities. It is not that hard for a doctor to overservice; you ask the patient to come back more often for a refill of a prescription or order a few more tests. We need to be aware of these looming issues before we get to them.
If we neglect reform in this area now, in five or six year's time, when we have chronic overservicing in the cities, we do not have enough doctors in the country and we stop importing doctors from overseas, we will be in an almighty mess. I have put together a paper on this. I have been speaking on it in various forums. I presented it to the health minister. I will continue to try and raise awareness of what we are heading for and what I think we should be trying to do to fix it before our head hits the concrete wall, if you like, because I think that is what we are heading for. With those remarks, I commend the bill. I think it is a step in the right direction, but I think we need to do much more.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (17:35): Today we are debating a bill to establish a rural health commissioner. Government MPs will say it is a great breakthrough in health care for regional Australia. I do not say it is a bad thing, but it falls a long way short of a great breakthrough, for most of the reasons that have been set out very eloquently by the member for Grey in his thoughtful contribution right now. I say, at best, it is an admission of failure. It could be much worse than that, and that is a distraction from a whole heap of issues that really are facing health care in regional and rural Australia.
I have been saying for a long time—and most informed members in this House know—that there is a very stubborn link between health inequality and wealth inequality. When one goes up, the other goes up as well. The disease risk factors are higher in areas of lower income and lower wealth, and access to preventive health measures are lower as well. This flows through to life expectancy. In our capital cities, the median age at death is 82.2 years. In outer regional areas, that drops to 79.2 years and 73.2 years for people living in remote Australia. The relative risk of mortality between the poorest and the richest income quintiles translates to a life expectancy gap at age 20 years of six years. Diabetes, just one of the chronic diseases rampant in regional Australia, is 3.5 times more common in working-age Australians in the poorest areas as it is in the wealthiest areas. Of course, the majority of those poorest areas are in regional, rural and remote Australia.
The government cannot be held accountable for every health failure that Australia and Australians are suffering, but they can be held accountable for the breaches of their own promises. I would like to take you back to the promises that the coalition parties made in the lead-up to the 2013 election. The National Party, in particular, had this to say in their plan for regional Australia. I am quoting directly from page 45 of that document, where they said:
The Nationals will provide increased financial support for doctors who provide health services in regional and remote communities …
That was the promise—in black-and-white on page 45 of the document. But, sadly, they did exactly the opposite. Instead of providing increased payments to doctors in regional and rural Australia, they tried to force through this House and the other place a cut to the payments made available to doctors not only in regional and rural Australia but everywhere through their $6 copayment. When they could not get that through the front door, they tried to force it through the back door through the GP rebate—a tax by any other mechanism.
Again, in the lead-up to that election the shadow minister for regional health said:
Regional health deserves a higher profile in the overall health policy government. When health policy decisions are being made regional concerns must be championed by a dedicated Minister with regional experience and a primary focus on the welfare of regional Australians.
Well, the operative word in that sentence and in that commitment is 'championed'. What we found in the last four and a half sorry years was that, far from being a champion, the dedicated minister for regional and rural health was either asleep at the wheel or ignored by the people who were making the real decisions. And the honourable Senator Nash admitted as much before that community affairs Senate estimates committee when she said she was not privy to any discussion around the creation of the GP copayment. So, far from being a champion, she was left out of the room when the key decisions were being made.
You could go to any number of issues. You could go to regional hospitals, where the Nationals promised that they would not support policies that 'led to the closure of regional hospitals'. A few months later, they filed into this place and voted for a budget which slashed over $3 billion from Australia's public hospital system and supported a Prime Minister who tore up the health and hospital agreement, an agreement that was going to secure funding over the long term for regional hospitals throughout Australia. I do not hold the government and, in particular, the regional MPs accountable for every single problem that is encountered in regional and rural Australia, but I do hold them to account for the promises that they continue to make and continue to break.
Labor will support the bill, which appears to have as its principal focus making the case for a new specialisation called a rural generalist. The minister who joins us at the table, Dr Gillespie, said as much in his second reading speech in this place—that a principal priority for the new rural health commissioner will be to make the case for a new specialisation called a rural general. This is a species of GP. The proposition, although currently in existence in at least one state in this country, namely Queensland, has yet to be fully fleshed out. It does have some merit on its face, but the devil is always in the detail.
The advocates for change argue that it will increase the number of doctors in regional Australia. I do want to make the point—similar to the member for Grey in his contribution—that there has never been a point in our nation's history when we have been putting more graduate doctors through our universities in this country. We have never been graduating more qualified health practitioners in this country than we are doing today—in large part due to the expansion and the policies of the Rudd and Gillard governments. But nobody in this House can argue that we are not graduating more qualified doctors out of universities around Australia than we are today. The problem is that they are practising in the wrong places. They are overwhelmingly clustered in the cities and the large urban centres and are not available in regional and rural Australia, which is why we are today overly reliant on overseas-trained doctors in rural and regional locations.
The advocates for this proposition should note that the architecture to deal with these workforce maldistribution issues was already in place when the coalition government came into government in 2013. The solution to the problems was already in place when the coalition came into government in 2013, but they could not leave it well alone. They made it as one of their first priorities to abolish Health Workforce Australia. They abolished it with the full support of the National Party. They stood in this place and gave great speeches as to why it was in the national interest that we abolish this agency which was going to help exactly the problems—it was tasked with dealing with exactly the problems—that the new rural health commissioner is going to be charged with in a much more limited scope. The Liberal and National parties abolished it just in the same way as they cut the Medicare rebates and abolished the Prevocational General Practice Placements Program—a program specifically designed to place post-graduation future doctors into regional and rural locations so that they could get the taste and experience of practice in those areas. It was a very successful program. The coalition—the National and Liberal parties abolished it. They abolished it just as they abolished the hospital funding agreement—which is placing increasing pressure and stress on our hospital system today—and they continue to underfund our hospitals.
Surprisingly for some, neither of these initiatives featured largely in their election commitments going into the 2016 election, and for this reason we have the bill before the House today. It is also curious, I have to say, that the Rural Health Commissioner's role dissolves in 2020. If the member for Grey is right, and if the member for Lyons is right in the observations that he made, which I agree with, in the opening comments of his speech on the second reading, then the problems we are facing are not going to disappear in the next three years. But the role of the Rural Health Commissioner will disappear in three years time. Presumably, we can take from that that the creation of this new role is solely focused on establishing the new position of a rural general specialist, that this will be the first and indeed the last priority for the government in regional, rural and remote health care. There are many allied health professionals who would disagree with this proposition, and I agree with them. There are a lot of priorities that we need to focus on in rural and regional health care, and creating a new position or a new specialist called the GP rural specialist, as important as it might be, is not going to address all of those important healthcare issues.
I want to talk a little bit about the crisis that we are facing in acute care and mental health throughout regional and rural Australia. I want to take you on a very quick trip through four electorates, because it paints the story very well. These are the things that we should be focusing on, and these are the problems that are not going to be fixed by a rural health commissioner—certainly not in the next three years—by the creation of one role or one new designation. I have had a look at some of the significant problems that we are facing with mental health and acute care throughout rural and regional Australia. It is always difficult to talk about the issue of suicide, which clearly is an acute problem, a terrible problem, afflicting not only the individuals and the families directly involved but also the entire community, when somebody takes their own life. It is obviously something that happens when somebody is suffering from acute mental health issues. Right throughout rural and regional Australia, we have a significant issue, and it is not being addressed.
I have looked at the statistics for my own electorate. Thankfully, at just over nine per 100,000, that is a problem that needs to be addressed, but is below the national average of 10.8 per 100,000. As I have looked at the areas that are facing some of the most acute problems, I have found that they are all in rural and regional Australia. I have looked up the figures for Capricornia: 21 per 100,000 in the local government area of Whitsunday, 16 per 100,000 in the Mackay Region and 15 per 100,000 in Rockhampton. This is an issue in regional and rural Australia that cannot be glossed over. It is something that we need to grapple with; it is something that we need to deal with. I look closer to home, down in the Shoalhaven and Kiama areas; at 16 and 15 deaths from suicide per 100,000 respectively, this is a crisis that must be dealt with. As we cut money from our Medicare system, as we cut money from our public hospital system, as we are withdrawing money from or tightening the screws in our healthcare system, these are the public health emergencies that are not being dealt with: acute care in our hospitals and acute care in our mental health areas. Close to the minister's own area—and I know he is a man who cares deeply about this—I looked up areas in the North Coast of New South Wales: over 16 deaths per 100,000 per annum in Richmond Valley, over 11 in the Lismore area and over 10½ in Coffs Harbour and in the Clarence Valley.
These are things that we should be focusing on. These are the things that need more attention and more resources. As important as creating a new statutory role of a rural health commissioner is, it does not go nearly far enough towards addressing the real issues that we have with mental health in regional and rural Australia and with acute care in regional and rural Australia. The government's actions in withdrawing funding from this sector are not going to make things better; in fact, they are going to make it worse.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (17:50): I am very pleased to support the establishment of the National Rural Health Commissioner, and I commend the ministers that have been involved in bringing this to this point. It is something that those on the other side have never even considered. Throughout the years of Labor government this was something that the Rural Doctors Association of Australia were constantly asking for. For as long as I can recall going to the Rural Doctors Association of Australia gatherings, the rural generalist pathway is exactly what they have been asking for. It is something that I have heard about for many years, and I commend the minister at the table for taking this particular action. This was something that was very important during the campaign.
We know that the National Rural Health Commissioner will be an independent statutory champion for rural Australia—great words, but greatly needed. Let's face it: rural Australia needs all the champions it can get, across all areas. The commissioner will work in a broad range of regional, rural and remote areas, and that is where I can see, through listening to the Rural Doctors Association of Australia for so many years, where this particular role for the commissioner will be so important. It will be important for the commissioner to work right across the board with the health sector, the universities and the specialist training colleges, across all levels of government, with the sole aim to improve rural health policy and access for all Australians, no matter where they live. It does not get simpler or more important than that.
Championing the cause of rural health is something the members on this side of the House do on a regular basis. I know that the national rural generalist training program that was suggested by the rural doctors came about because they understood so well the importance of a generalist—that is, the rural GP. I only have to look back into my own history. We had a couple of fantastic doctors who gave historic service in my region, serving the areas of Harvey and Brunswick, which were very small rural communities in those days. I can recall a man by the name of doctor Dr Stimson, who used to do small visits to Brunswick, where I lived. He worked out of the Harvey hospital. Dr Topham and Dr Wu came as well. In those days these gentlemen would do everything. It did not matter what happened in the local Harvey hospital, these doctors were capable of performing in that setting virtually everything that needed doing. They did everything from delivering babies to operations right across the board. It was the one-stop-shop pretty well, except for the very serious cases, which in those days went through to Perth.
We have seen since the establishment in Bunbury of the South West Health Campus, which is now supporting so many specialist services as well as the St John of God hospital, the local public hospital, and the regional hospital. There are so many services, from mental health through to cancer support, right across the board. It also supports our rural clinical school, which again was an initiative of the Howard years of encouraging more young people who were training to be doctors, to be GPs, to actually consider training in a regional area. We have these rural clinical schools operating in Bunbury and in Busselton as well and we get students from all over the state. One of the things they do while there is get for 12 months the experience of living and working in a rural community. What we hope from that is that we get more locally trained, locally sourced kids—whether they are from right around Western Australia or our locals—who go away and do their training and come back and spend some time at the rural clinical schools. We are starting to see some results, where they are making a conscious decision to come back and live and work in our communities. The one thing that does for those who become rural GPs—and I do not mean any disrespect—is that they almost become a god in a small community because they deal with the life and death and the lifetime health issues of complete families. The Dr Wu in Harvey I spoke about before not only delivered my children but has been our family GP all our lives. This is what happens in small regional communities. We rely on those doctors, especially when we are at a distance.
As most people in this House know I am a farmer. In my time as a local farmer I have had everything from a man who had been run over by a tractor rock up at my home to a young man who, after a paddock had been burnt, fell down an ant nest that was still burning and was red-hot. He had basically lost the skin from the lower part of his body. He ran through the diversion drain to get to my home and stood there shaking, completely in shock. I got a moist sheet—I had fortunately done nine years of first aid, which you need out on the farm—and got him on it and told my husband to ring the hospital and to tell the police I am coming, going pretty fast as I needed to get this young man in. My own husband had a close encounter with a tiger snake, and at one point my own son was kicked in the heart by a cow and stopped breathing.
So our reliance in rural, regional and even more remote areas is based around the capabilities of these wonderful general practitioners. Let me tell you that there are countless people in my own community who have relied all their lives on the work of these amazing GPs. They historically have been what is now termed the 'rural generalist'—they could do anaesthetics, they could deliver babies, and they were operating on people. They did almost every task except for the real specialist work that needed doing. They have done an amazing job and I want to pay tribute to the lifetime of work that so many of our GPs throughout rural and regional Australia have put into their whole communities. I want to say a huge thank you to them, because the lives of our whole community depends on them. They stay in our community and our part and parcel of it. When we walk down the street we can talk to them and if you have a real emergency you can ring them up. That is the way it has worked. And they work with the local St John Ambulance volunteers. These people also, being the first responders, do such an extraordinary job in rural and regional Australia. Often, many of the services provided by St John are in very extreme and remote areas, just as we have the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which comes in and out. So often we rely on the GP and those emergency services, our volunteer St John Ambulance people. I grew up having St John in my home, in a sense, because my mother was a St John Ambulance attendant and first aid teacher. For all my life at home our home phone was the ambulance phone, so even as children we would have to be able to take a call, get an ambulance and get it to the right place, knowing how many people needed treatment.
When I see someone like our National Rural Health Commissioner, who is going to be focusing on and championing the interests of rural Australians, all I can think of is the great need that is out there and the great team of people who work so hard in this place already. As we know, it is so important, because health outcomes tend to be poorer outside of major cities, and that is where all these different parts of this whole health provision come in.
We see that the major contributors to higher death rates in rural and regional and remote areas are coronary heart disease, other circulatory diseases, motor vehicle accidents and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And of course in the case of motor vehicle accidents we see so many of them, which is where St John Ambulance volunteers and even our local GPs are so important, because they are often the first people who see these patients when they are taken to a small local hospital.
We see such differences in usage of health services between the metro areas and rural and regional areas. In some instances there are lower rates of some hospital surgical procedures, lower rates of GP consultation and generally higher rates of hospital admissions in rural and regional and remote areas than in major cities. There are also inter-regional differences in risks. For instance, people from regional and remote areas tend to be more likely than their major city counterparts to smoke and drink alcohol in harmful or hazardous quantities, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. So, there are higher death rates and poorer health outcomes outside major cities.
But in talking about the rural clinical schools, I want to commend the work in my electorate. In November 2016, 60 rural students from 22 country towns, including 17 students from Bunbury, graduated from the University of Western Australia's medical school. It was the biggest number of rural-background doctors to graduate in a single year. That is a great outcome, because what we are really hoping is that some of those great young people will choose to come back to our part of the world to practise and to become an integral part of a small community. It might be somewhere like Augusta in the south, or it could be Nannup. It could be any one of my small communities where this person will become very much the centre of health provision in that community. And I do hope that more of them do so, as we are seeing throughout the electorate.
This program is now in its 16th year, and the number of UWA medical graduates from country areas has really grown since it was launched in 2000, with 325 rural WA students graduating. It is great news, and there is very good evidence that rural-origin students are three times more likely to return to the country than are their urban counterparts. So, the more young people I see from my electorate and from rural and regional electorates and remote electorates who go off and do their training in the city, where they have to do their training, the more young people I am likely to see coming back.
In the time remaining to me I want to acknowledge the wonderful work of Murray Cowper, who was the member for Murray-Wellington, who I worked with. He did an enormous amount of work to get the $13 million revitalisation of Harvey Hospital and the Harvey Health Service, and he did an absolutely amazing job. We had to be very persistent in this, but the new emergency department that is linked to the procedure room is absolutely amazing. It is going to make a massive difference to a small community—and it is already, and we are seeing a difference in my part of the world. And the money that was put into the Busselton Health Campus was really significant. There was $117.9 million of state government funding that went into the new Busselton Health Campus.
What I am demonstrating is that the rural areas are different, and remote is different again. I am really supporting this piece of legislation and the work of the Rural Health Commissioner. I commend the minister at the desk, and I commend this bill to the House.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (18:04): I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members on all sides of the chamber for their contributions to this debate on the Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017. I thank them for the suggestions they put forward to me directly and during their speeches, which I have endeavoured to incorporate into this legislation. To my Nationals and Liberal colleagues, thank you for your contributions. To the members for Indi, Mayo, Lingiari, Whitlam and many others, as well as my colleague the member for Makin, the shadow minister, opposite: thank you for your contributions.
There are a few things I would like to summarise and point out again. The legislation and the funding commitment over the forward estimates does allow the coalition government to deliver on an election promise in the lead-up to 2016 made by my colleague Senator Fiona Nash. I anticipate that the role will indeed achieve its broader objectives in helping to deliver all the critical outcomes about which many of us are in furious agreement as to the need for reform and better outcomes. I am hopeful that, in the future, further support can be obtained in both a budgetary and a legislative context.
Several people have spoken up about the scope of work the Rural Health Commissioner will be asked to perform, and I would just reinforce, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, that it will be the first and most pressing duty of the Rural Health Commissioner to address the issue of the medical workforce and coordinate with all the various stakeholders, which are numerous, in the development of a rural generalist pathway. The commissioner will provide advice in relation to rural health beyond that. There are very many other matters in which the Rural Health Commissioner will have to be involved, in policy development and championing causes.
I understand the value of multidisciplinary health, and so does just about anyone that works in the health space, particularly in the rural workforce, where there is multidisciplinary care and—whether it is rural or very remote—teamwork is paramount. As I said in my earlier speech—I will quote my own words, just so there is no ambiguity in any way or form about how I think there are more roles for the Rural Health Commissioner than what was alluded to:
While the development of the pathways will be the commissioner's first priority, the needs of nursing, dental health, pharmacy, Indigenous health, mental health, midwifery, occupational therapy, physical therapy and other allied health stakeholders will also be considered.
Health-care planning, programs and service delivery models must be adapted to meet the widely differing health needs of rural communities and overcome the challenges of geographic spread, low population density, limited infrastructure and the significantly higher costs of rural and remote health-care delivery.
In rural and remote areas, partnerships across health-care sectors and between health-care providers and other sectors will help address the economic and social determinants of health that are essential to meeting the needs of these communities. The commissioner will form and strengthen these relationships, across the professions and for all the communities.
There were other comments made about an independent or a voluntary advisory group to help the Rural Health Commissioner, and in fact I have brought to the attention of some of the speakers this evening that we do indeed have, and have already set up, a rural stakeholder round table, which last met on 16 November 2016, and the idea that they would work with the Rural Health Commissioner has been established. There were 18 attendees at the last meeting, across all the stakeholder groups in the rural health space. There was the Dental Association, Indigenous health Australia—I could go through a long list, but I just mentioned that there were 18 different stakeholders. It was not an isolated group of people by any means. We had all the voices at the table and the role of the Rural Health Commissioner was spoken about at length, and that person taking advice from that stakeholder meeting and attending it as well was spoken about.
Also, separate from this legislation, workforce distribution has been raised as a big issue, and within the department I am establishing a distribution working group that will also work with the health commissioner, and there will be representatives from rural health stakeholders as well. The commissioner would be a member of that distribution working group and could use the group to take advice on other of the commissioner's functions.
So it is always good to flush out good advice and good ideas. I am open to good ideas. But I think there is genuine and universal support for the position. As I mentioned, we have established funding for it up to the defined period, but I am sure it will be a successful role, and I will lend my executive and other support on that basis going forward after that period. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): I thank the honourable minister. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (18:11): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 14), after paragraph 79AC(2)(a), insert:
(aa) consult with communities in regional, rural and remote areas, including consumer support and advocacy groups in those areas;
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 19), at the end of subsection 79AC(2), add:
; (d) consider the affordability of health services in regional, rural and remote areas, and options to ensure that bulk billing services (with no gap payments) are available in those areas.
Minister, thank you very much for the opportunity to work with you on this bill, and I appreciate the openness that you have displayed. However, my amendments are specifically to move in the bill that we consult with community and advocacy groups as well as doctors, that we consider options for increasing access to bulk-billing, and that we report back on what the actual impact is so that people will know that it is working. The amendments ensure that rural and regional communities are included in the consultation by actually including them in the bill rather than assuming that they will be included in the category 'other stakeholders', and including a role for the commissioner to consider the affordability of health services and addressing the availability of the no-gap bulk-billing. So they are my amendments as circulated.
Question negatived.
Ms McGOWAN: Can my dissent be noted, please.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It will be noted.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (18:13): by leave—I would now like to move version 2 of amendment (3) as circulated in my name:
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 35), at the end of section 79AC, add:
(5) The Minister must table a copy of the final report before each House of the Parliament, within five sitting days of the House after the final report is given to the Minister.
This amendment at clause 3 is intended to increase the transparency of the commissioner to the parliament. The current arrangement is that the commissioner reports to the minister. This amendment requires the minister to table the report to parliament within five days of it being received.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (18:14): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2016
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (18:15): I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2016. This bill puts into effect three minor technical changes to the administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and Labor is, I will say the outset, supportive of this bill. Labor welcomes the practical benefits which will arise from the passage of this bill in making the administration of the PBS more efficient for pharmacists and for patients. The bill allows the Minister for Health, the Secretary of the Department of Health and the Chief Executive Medicare to delegate administrative actions, including decision making, to computer programs. This will allow for the automated online processing of PBS claims so that pharmacists do not have to submit hard-copy prescriptions to the Department of Human Services for reconciliation. It will also allow approvals for certain prescriptions to be granted online rather than on the phone or in writing as at present.
The bill allows pharmacists whose premises have been affected by disaster or exceptional circumstances—flood or fire, for example—to supply pharmaceutical benefits at nearby alternative premises for up to six months. Affected pharmacists will apply to the secretary of the health department for permission to operate from alternative premises. The secretary will exercise discretion over whether the usual premises have been affected by a disaster or exceptional circumstances and whether the alternative premises are substantially in the same location, and other administrative questions. The bill is intended to help maintain access to medicines for communities that have been affected by a disaster or exceptional circumstances. It will also improve arrangements for affected pharmacists, who are currently required to submit a full pharmacy application for temporary premises and are only paid 90 per cent of the value of claims until that application is approved. The bill also clarifies that PBS benefits can be provided to concessional beneficiaries and their dependants on the day of their death. A quirk in the current law provides that benefits cease on the day prior to death, consistent with social security legislation, because other social security benefits apply from the date of death.
These are, as I said at the start, largely administrative changes which have been welcomed by stakeholders across the sector. However, I want to flag that Labor will be watching the rollout of computerised decision making very closely. Automated processing of claims and prescription approvals should reduce red tape for pharmacists and prescribers. I know many GPs in particular have seen the authorised prescribing process as a bugbear for quite some time. The automated processing of claims should certainly assist with reducing the time that GPs are spending on the phone waiting for approvals rather than having that done through a computer system, which will hopefully mean that GPs are able to spend more time with their patients than waiting on the telephone.
But, as have seen on a number of occasions, this government has bungled IT projects, including of course the census, the availability of Medicare rebates and the problems with Medicare and PBS data on data.gov.au being de-identified, and with the way in which the government or the health department released that data. More recently, we have seen the government's farcical approach to the implementation of the National Cancer Screening Register—frankly, a complete and utter bungle which has pushed back the rollout of a lifesaving cervical cancer screening test. This government has an appalling record on IT, and we hope that the rollout of the technology that this bill allows for does not have the same fate. I acknowledge that this bill does include some safeguards: the minister, secretary and chief executive will remain responsible for decisions made on their behalf by computer programs; the minister, secretary and chief executive will be able to override a decision made by a computer program; and decisions that are currently reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will remain reviewable, regardless of whether or not they are made by a computer program.
While this bill makes three minor improvements to the administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, it does nothing about the real threat to the PBS: the government's plan to increase the price of every medicine by up to $5. The so-called zombie measures from the notorious 2014 budget remain government policy to this day. In the horror budget of 2014, the government announced cuts of $1.3 billion from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, to be achieved by increasing co-payments and safety net thresholds. The measures include increasing co-payments for general patients by $5 and for concessional payments by 80c for every single script. PBS safety net thresholds would also be increased each year for four years, with general safety net thresholds to increase by 10 per cent each year and concessional safety nets to increase by the cost of two prescriptions each year, making it harder and harder for patients to reach that safety net. These increases are in addition to the existing annual indexation of co-payments and safety net thresholds in line with the consumer price index.
Labor has consistently fought these cuts, and so far we have prevented them from becoming law—despite the fact that, having passed this place, they have never been presented before the Senate. The government knows that Labor has the numbers in the Senate to block them, and we have consistently done that since the 2014 budget. Despite this, the Prime Minister included the PBS price hike in the 2016 budget. It has been included in the mid-year economic and financial outlooks and, frankly, it has continued in the government's rhetoric—a clear signal of the commitment to continue with this measure. The most vulnerable, the poor, the elderly and the sick will be hit worst by this plan to cut the PBS. As an example, a general patient filling two scripts per month will be $100 per year worse off on medicines alone.
The more expensive a medicine becomes, the less likely people are to fill their prescriptions. The latest Bureau of Statistics Patient Experience Survey shows that up to 10 per cent of people already delay or avoid filling a prescription due to cost, and of course the impacts are unequal. People living in areas of greatest disadvantage are twice as likely to skip prescriptions as people living in areas of least disadvantage. I note we just had a really good debate about rural health; I would like the government to consider perhaps some of the other measures that it has in the health policy area and the impact that they have on the health of those Australians who live in rural and regional Australia.
Affordable medicine is at the heart of Medicare, yet if the government get their way, Australians will be forced to pay more for every script every time they get sick. The changes to the PBS, which are budgeted to start on 1 July this year, will drive up the cost of health care for every Australian. Pensioners, families and the chronically ill will be the hardest hit. During the election, Labor stood up to protect Medicare by reversing the Prime Minister's plan to increase the cost of medicines. Delaying access to medicine and treatment can result in illnesses worsening and the ultimate cost of health care increasing. Labor believe all Australians should be able to access affordable, quality health care when and where they need it. That is why Labor built Medicare and the PBS and why we will always fight to protect access to universal, affordable health care for all Australians.
Legislation to establish the PBS was first introduced by Labor Prime Minister John Curtin during the Second World War. It was part of the government's social compact with Australian citizens. This was Labor's response to the need to provide access to newly available antibiotic drugs for the whole population, not only for the minority of people who could afford them. At the time, the Conservative opposition opposed the plan, seeing universal health care as an underhand plan to nationalise medicine. It was not until 1960 that Australians had access to the comprehensive PBS that Curtin had envisaged in 1944.
Then, as now, the Liberals cannot be trusted with the universal healthcare system that is so important to all Australians. Millions of Australians voted against the Prime Minister's price hikes to medicines and his other cuts to health. So far, he has not been listening. But today we again call on him to do so. While Labor support the passage of this legislation to make minor improvements to the administration of the PBS, we once again call on the Prime Minister to drop his plan to raise the price of medicines. The PBS is a central pillar of Medicare and our universal healthcare system, and Labor will continue to fight for it.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (18:24): I too rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2016. While this side of the House support this bill in principle, there is some hesitation. The hesitation is there because the government has a tendency to slowly but surely chip away at our country's most important safety nets. We have seen this in the past. This means that we on this side must be absolutely vigilant. We have seen it, for example, in the government's refusal to support our legislation that would reverse cuts to penalty rates. We have also seen it in respect of pensioners, people with disabilities and the unemployed. Most of all, we have seen it with respect to our universal health system—that is, Medicare.
Just last month we celebrated Medicare's 33rd birthday. It was a Labor government under Bob Hawke that introduced the reforms to make universal health care a reality in our country. Medicare is one of the most significant reforms in Australia introduced by the Hawke government. These were very hard-fought reforms that were opposed by Conservative governments and Conservative oppositions at every point. As I have said before in this place, it took two Labor governments more than two decades to embed what is now Medicare, and we will not see it undone.
The PBS is an integral part of our healthcare system, just as Medicare is. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme began as a limited scheme in 1948. We just heard the shadow minister and member for Ballarat speak about Curtin, who introduced this particular scheme with free medicines for pensioners and with a list of 139 life-saving and disease-preventing medicines free of charge for others in the community at the time. It is now part of the Australian government's broader National Medicines Policy. People on low incomes, especially aged pensioners and disability support pensioners, rely heavily on the PBS. These are our most vulnerable people, and any proposed changes can have a significant effect and impact on their ability to access affordable medicines. As I said earlier, this is why we must be vigilant about these issues.
The bill that we are discussing today makes three technical changes to the administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Firstly, the bill regulates the use of computer programs in respect of the PBS. It allows the Minister for Health, the Secretary of the Department of Health and the Chief Executive Medicare to delegate administrative actions, including decision making, to computer programs. This will allow for automated, online processing of PBS claims so that pharmacists do not have to submit hard copies of prescriptions to the Department of Human Services for reconciliation. It will also allow approvals for certain prescriptions to be granted online rather than on the phone or in writing, as at present. I know that some pharmacies already have their own systems in place to allow prescriptions online if they are repeat prescriptions over a long period of time.
While this seems like a relatively benign aspect of the bill and one that will hopefully simplify the process for both pharmacists and customers, we have seen other implementations of IT systems that are meant to streamline processes, make it easier for the public, reduce the paperwork and make it quicker turn into a debacle. For example, the census was the last one that I can remember. The Centrelink debt recovery program, which is a new, automated system, is also a debacle. This government has a history of bungling the transition to automated computer systems. I hope it is not the case with this one. It is often our most vulnerable Australians who pay the price. Certainly, those who rely on the PBS are some of our most vulnerable people.
This is why I am relieved that the bill includes a number of safeguards regarding the use of computer programs. Firstly, the bill stipulates that the minister, secretary and chief executive will retain ultimate responsibility for decisions made on their behalf by these computer programs. This is vital, because when things go wrong, as they have a habit of doing under this government, someone needs to be held responsible. An example of this was the census debacle, where the responsibility was not handled by anyone—not one, single minister wanted to take responsibility for that debacle with the census back in September. In addition, the minister, secretary and chief executive, or their delegates, will be able to override a decision made by a computer program if they are satisfied that it is incorrect, and decisions that are currently reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will remain reviewable, regardless of whether they are made by a computer program or not. These are important safeguards, and I sincerely hope that these changes do not cause more problems than they are trying to solve, as occurred with the census debacle that we had last year.
Secondly, this bill addresses the supply of pharmaceuticals after a disaster or in exceptional circumstances. It enables pharmacists whose premises, for example, have been affected by disaster or exceptional circumstances such as fire, flood or a natural disaster to supply pharmaceutical benefits at nearby alternative premises for up to six months. This is a good thing because they continue to serve that community around them, and we know that pharmacists do a great job serving the community, so this would be an added benefit. Of course, there would be some disruption for a short period but, as quickly as possible, they would be able to continue those services within their communities. The bill is also intended to help maintain access to medicines for communities that have been affected by disaster or exceptional circumstances. It will improve arrangements for affected pharmacists, who are currently required to submit a full pharmacy application for temporary premises. It is taking out some of the paperwork and time delays to get up and running again for the benefit not only of the pharmacist, so he can keep his business viable, but also for the community in and around that area.
Thirdly, the bill will also address and rectify an inconsistency about the supply of medication through the PBS benefits on the day of a person's death. A quirk in the current law provides that benefits cease on the day prior to the death, but we know that people cannot predict nor say when that period will occur. So it is a bit silly that the law provides that the benefits cease on the day prior to the death because, obviously, pharmaceuticals and drugs can be taken right up to the end. This brings the PBS legislation in line with social security legislation because other social security benefits apply from the date of death. Therefore, the bill will enable PBS benefits to be provided to beneficiaries and their dependants on that day of their death.
Labor is supporting this bill. With respect to patients, we feel that the bill offers the opportunity to marginally improve access to PBS medicines, and stakeholders including the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners have expressed their support for the bill. But it is important that we remain vigilant. We will be watching the rollout of computerised decision-making closely. As I said, the previous history of this government shows that when they roll out new IT systems they have turned into an absolute debacle. The aim of these reforms, especially the use of automated computer systems, is to simplify the processing of claims and prescription approvals. We will be keeping an eye on it. It should reduce red tape for pharmacists and prescribers. But, as I have said before, we have seen this government repeatedly bungle IT projects, including the census and the availability of Medicare and PBS data on data.gov.au. We cannot have a situation again where Australians are made to pay and suffer because these automated processes fail to work and customers end up having to prove the computer wrong, as we have seen in so many cases currently before Centrelink with its disastrous debt recovery program.
In addition, we must be vigilant because the government has shown us time and time again that it is hell-bent on diluting our public healthcare scheme. This bill does nothing about the real threat to the PBS, namely the government's plan to increase the price of every medicine by up to $5. I have spoken about these so-called measures before, but there are also the 'zombie measures' which are still there from the notorious 2014 budget. They have been reintroduced under various bills et cetera, and they have been tied to other reforms. One thing is certain: the government will not kill them off and they are still there. Make no mistake, the government is determined to increase co-payments by $5 for general patients and by 80c for concessional patients. This means that our most vulnerable citizens—the poor, the elderly, pensioners and the sick—will be worst hit by this government's plans to cut the PBS. If the government has its way, a general patient filling two scripts per month would be $100 per year worse off on medicines alone. Just as the additional Medicare co-payments that the Turnbull government wants to introduce would have the effect of discouraging people from going to see their doctor, it is the same thing with the PBS: the more expensive medicine becomes, the less likely people are to fill their prescriptions.
The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics Patient Experience Survey shows that up to 10 per cent of people already delay or avoid filling a prescription due to the cost. And, as is so often the case, those who are most disadvantaged already will be the worst hit. We know from the research that people living in areas of greatest disadvantage are twice as likely to skip prescriptions as people living in areas of least disadvantage. This will only get worse if the Prime Minister gets his way and increases the price of medicines.
We saw how Australians reacted to the Turnbull government's plan to tamper with Medicare. The opposition is committed to reversing the Prime Minister's plan to raise the price of vital medicines. Millions of Australians voted against the Prime Minister's price hikes to medicines—the shadow minister and member for Ballarat mentioned that earlier— and his other health cuts. So far he is not listening. That is nothing new, unfortunately—but we on this side are listening.
Medicare and the PBS are the heart and soul of our universal health care system and the envy of many countries around the world. Medicare ensures people can access life-saving treatment when they need it. Last year around 21 million Australians accessed Medicare services—including GP visits, vital tests and scans, and hospital treatments. Australians do not want to be like the US when it comes to health care. We do not want the Americanisation of our universal health care system, which is one of the best in the world. We have already seen a drop in bulk billing rates, with many Australians already paying more to see their doctor.
Now this government is going even further, with over $2 billion in new cuts to Medicare still to come. Middle-and working-class Australians will be paying more out-of-pocket costs for visits to their local GP, prescription medicine, medical tests and scans, cancer treatment and dental services. Nobody wants to head down the same path as the US when it comes to health care. Access to healthcare should rely on your Medicare card, not your credit card. Labor gave Australians Medicare and we will protect it for a long as we can. We will ensure that we fight hard to ensure that Medicare is protected.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (18:39): I have been a registered pharmacist for 20 years. I have worked in both community and hospital pharmacy in Australia and overseas. My goal, in this place, is to work towards the better health of my community. The people of the Central Coast deserve accessible and affordable healthcare. They deserve to be able to see a doctor, when they need one. They deserve access to medicines, when they need them. This is only possible through support for Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Labor supports the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill, and I am pleased to support the bill, because we recognise that even modest changes can have a positive impact on the administration of the PBS. However, having grown up on the Central Coast and worked at Wyong Hospital for the last 10 years, I cannot stand by while this government undermines Medicare and the PBS and while the New South Wales Liberal government is in the process of selling off Wyong hospital. I cannot ignore their failings when it comes to the delivery of important IT reforms. And I cannot excuse their ideologically driven agenda that is hurting my community.
This bill makes three technical, but nonetheless important, changes to the administration of the PBS. It will allow online services to process PBS claims and prescription authorities, improve location rules for pharmacies affected by disasters and ensure concessional patients are covered until the last day of life. The changes to the supply of pharmaceuticals after a disaster or in exceptional circumstances will mean pharmacists whose premises have been affected by natural disaster or emergency, such as fire or flood, can supply PBS medicines from a nearby location for up to six months. Under the current location rules, pharmacies are restricted on how often and how far they are able to move from their PBS approved site. This amendment will see the relocated pharmacy receive the full PBS subsidy, not the current 90 per cent, without the need for separate PBS approval at the new site for up to six months, or in some cases longer, depending on the circumstances.
The Ourimbah Pharmacy, in my electorate of Dobell, on the New South Wales Central Coast, was the victim of arson attack in May 2015. The pharmacy owner, Anna-Lee, tells me it was an extremely stressful time for her and the patients she cares for. Because of the nature of their stock, pharmacies need stringent security measures—and in fact the arsonists that destroyed Anna-Lee's pharmacy gained entry by unscrewing roof panels. Anna-Lee says the administrative burden of applying for approval to trade at a temporary location, in addition to the refurbishments needed to any commercial space to make it secure and fit for purpose, made the task an enormous one. Patients rely on their pharmacists, particularly those using Webster-paks. On the day after her pharmacy was destroyed by fire, Anna-Lee set up outside the gutted chemist shop to see patients who rely on her. The rebuild took 4½ months to complete, but Anna-Lee tells me it was more than 12 months till she felt the pharmacy was back to its original capacity. With this amendment, pharmacy owners like Anna-Lee will be better supported to continue serving patients after a disaster, a fire or a flood, which would have made a big difference for Anna-Lee and the patients she cares for.
The bill also clarifies that PBS benefits can be provided to concessional beneficiaries and their dependants on the day of their death. This replaces an anomaly in the current law where, in line with social security benefits, concessional entitlements cease on the day prior to death. According to the government, of the 146 million PBS prescriptions that were filled for concessional beneficiaries last year, less than a thousand were supplied to people on the date of death. This is a positive change, particularly for those pharmacies servicing the aged-care sector, and for those already out of pocket the backdating of the measure to 1 April 2015 will be welcome. I acknowledge the Pharmacy Guild of Australia for putting these two important issues on the government's agenda and thank them for representing the interests of their members and our community.
This bill also refers to the streamlined processing of PBS claims using online services, and online processing of approval requests for doctors to write certain prescriptions. The government says this bill 'will enable the claims computer system to match payment assessments against a pharmacy's certification of supply and take the administrative actions that would otherwise be taken by the Chief Executive Medicare'. Of course, pharmacists lodge prescription claims online as medicine is dispensed, and have done so for over a decade. According to the Department of Human Services annual report, 99.9 per cent of approved suppliers used online claiming last year.
A lot of things have changed since my graduate training year in 1996. Like a lot of new pharmacists I was tasked with processing the claim. At the time, this manual process required sorting prescriptions into categories—general, concessional, repatriation—collating them in numerical order and bundling them up with a floppy disk and a claim form and they were collected by a courier and driven to a government office in Parramatta or, in the case of my boss, Mr Drew, who did not trust couriers, they were driven by Mr Drew to Parramatta. Much has changed in the 20 years I have worked as a pharmacist, including real-time claiming through PBS Online and e-prescribing through e-prescription exchange, improving the safety and efficiency of the dispensing process. The outcome of these reforms should mean reduced payment times for pharmacists, and I welcome this. However, there is more work to be done. The integration of PBS records with general health records—a genuinely integrated approach—would improve the efficiency and safety of prescribing and treatment and improve health outcomes for Australians.
This bill also aims to reduce the time doctors and authorised prescribers spend seeking approval to write authority prescriptions by phone or in writing. Pharmacists, however, do much more than fill prescriptions. They are the most accessible of all the health professionals. You do not need an appointment to see them; they are generally open later and longer; and there is no fee to seek your pharmacist's advice. Professional Pharmacists Australia, in their submission to the King review, describe a regular day for a community pharmacist as:
…dispensing, counselling, writing medical certificates, fixing a patient's glucometer, demonstrating correct inhaler techniques, paperwork, calling doctors, preparing Webster Packs, performing medicine reviews and providing first aid advice. In addition to these health care services, many pharmacists are also expected to perform retail tasks, including home deliveries.
Having worked for more than a decade in a hospital pharmacy, where 20 per cent of PBS is expended, I would add to this list for hospital pharmacists: best possible medication histories on admission, clinical screening and intervention and collaboration with patients and carers as part of multidisciplinary teams to provide the best possible care.
Pharmacists in community and hospital settings put patients at the centre—they always put patients first—but if the demands on their time are too great, the care they are able to provide is affected. According to Professional Pharmacists Australia:
Many pharmacists report heavy and unrealistic workloads which increases the pressure to dispense more quickly, along with a range of other professional and non-professional requirements, with the possibility of an increase in the chances of errors. This is against a backdrop of an increasing number of subsidised prescriptions from 208 million in 2011-12 to 223 million in 2013-14.
Governments can, and should, support the work of pharmacists as an integral part of the healthcare system and, while this bill presents an opportunity to gain small efficiencies in the administration of the PBS, there is more work to be done if we are serious about improving and strengthening the PBS.
Importantly, we should look closely at the sections of this bill that deal with safeguards, including the responsibility for decisions to remain with the minister, secretary and chief executive. There are also safeguards in place relating to reviews. But we know this is not without risk. Even a small input error or programming mistake could see thousands of wrong decisions. We need look no further than the Centrelink robo-debt debacle to see how a system can be completely bungled by this government. My office has been inundated with complaints from people who have received incorrect debt letters from Centrelink and who struggle to clear their name. They have done nothing wrong, but to prove that often takes hours—from seeking records from past employers to phone calls and visits to Centrelink offices. With a department so drastically under-resourced and directives from a government so callously opposed to the social safety net, this is not just a stuff up—it is just cruel.
With close to 300 million prescriptions issued in the past year through thousands of PBS-approved suppliers and billions of dollars paid in subsidies each year, the government must ensure the rollout of these measures is done properly. But when we look at its record, we are right to have reservations about its ability or desire to properly manage this. This is the government that has incompetently managed e-health and has been dishonest about delays to the cervical and bowel cancer screening register. This is the government that bungled the census; it is the architect of the second-rate NBN and its patchwork of technologies. The government talks of innovation, agility and exciting times, but that is all it is—just talk. We will be watching the rollout of computerised decision making for PBS claims and approvals very closely. Please do not stuff this one up, too.
This bill represents minor but important changes to the operation of the PBS. These are just some of the pressing issues facing pharmacists, health workers and patients on the Central Coast. During recent conversations with local health practitioners and practice managers at my health roundtable, unfreezing Medicare rebates and updating the data used to determine Districts of Workforce Shortage were important ways to ensure fair and equitable access to health care. The government's own figures show more than 15,000 people on the Central Coast say they delay or avoid seeing a GP due to cost, and the Medicare freeze only makes this problem worse. I am alarmed that more than 30,000 people on the Central Coast say they delay or avoid filling prescriptions due to cost. This will only get worse if the plan to increase the cost of medicines by up to $5 a script goes ahead.
For those people experiencing financial hardship, increases in the cost of medicines can mean making the choice between filling a prescription or putting food on the table. Analysis by the Family Medicine Research Centre at the University of Sydney has shown that, although the increase in the co-payment is less for concessional patients, on average the actual cost increase for medications is higher. We know that this leads to disease progression, higher rates of hospital admissions and increased costs to the health system and the individual in the long term.
I was a pharmacist at Wyong Hospital for almost a decade and for the largest part of my career I was the specialist pharmacist in the inpatient mental health unit. I have seen the challenges that vulnerable people living in my community face first-hand. Coupled with a proposal from the New South Wales government to privatise Wyong Hospital, I am deeply concerned about the future health care for my local community. Last year, the federal government provided over $111 million in funding for the Central Coast Local Health District. The Prime Minister and the health minister have a direct stake in Wyong Hospital, and I call on them to step in and save Wyong Hospital.
Labor supports this bill and will continue to support commonsense changes that improve the efficient and effective delivery of healthcare services. But so too will we continue to hold this government to account as it embarks on a callous, ideologically-driven attack on Medicare and the PBS. We will do so because it is fundamental to the values of the Labor Party. The Labor Party is the party of Medicare, the party of the PBS and the party of universal health care.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (18:51): It is a great honour to follow my friend, the member for Dobell, in speaking on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2016. She brings to the parliament and the subject matter before the parliament decades of experience as a professional pharmacist, and I understand that she is very passionate about this subject matter—as I am. So I will be supporting the bill, as will Labor. It marginally improves access to PBS medicines, and that is something we have to support. I note that it has broad support from a range of stakeholders, including the Pharmacy Guild and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.
The bill allows for decision making to be automated by delegating ministerial, department, secretary and chief executive decision making to computer programs. This is something that will probably concern many who are following this quite closely, for reasons which I will outline quite shortly. The authorities remain responsible for the decisions of computers and automated decisions may be overridden by those authorities. Decisions that are currently reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will remain reviewable.
I do have concerns. I share some of the concerns of the people listening in. I am concerned that this government is not up to the task of managing this program. That is not something that I say lightly. The Turnbull government has repeatedly bungled IT projects, including the 2016 census, which is a famous bungling of an IT project, but also the availability of Medicare and PBS data on data.gov.au. In addition to that, the Centrelink debt scandal is something that the government has unfortunately visited on thousands of innocent Australians who did nothing but lawfully claim a Centrelink benefit. Data matching is nothing new—it has been going on for decades—but the way this government has managed the program has meant that there are literally thousands and thousands of Australians who are having their lives turned upside down because of the mismanagement of the Minister for Human Services and, ultimately, the Turnbull government. Against this background we have some concerns about the government's capacity to manage what would otherwise be fair and reasonable legislation.
The bill will mean that pharmacists will not have to submit hard copies of prescriptions to the human services department for reconciliation. It will also allow for approvals for certain prescriptions to be granted online. That is nothing more than this process meeting the 21st century, so it warrants our support. The bill includes a number of safeguards regarding the use of computer programs—for example, in the area of access to medicines after a disaster. The bill also allows for pharmacists to supply pharmaceutical benefits at nearby alternative premises for up to six months after a disaster such as a fire or flood. It will allow pharmacists to apply to the secretary of the health department for permission to operate from alternative premises. These measures are designed to maintain a supply and access to medicines after a disaster. That is a perfectly reasonable and sensible arrangement that warrants our support.
Currently access to PBS benefits for an individual ceases prior to the day of their death. This is consistent with social security legislation, where other benefits are payable from the date of the death. The bill extends the date of coverage until the day of somebody passing away. I think all reasonable people would think that that is something that everyone in this place should support, as well.
This bill sits within a broader context where the government has mismanaged healthcare policy, healthcare delivery and budget initiatives in relation to the health sector since that debacle of a budget, the 2014 budget. Nothing fundamental has changed in their approach to these issues. That is why people are right to be concerned about any proposition that comes before parliament that has to do with the management of either Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, funding of our health and hospitals or even the health workforce more broadly. The government, as everybody here would recall, tried to introduce a GP tax—a tax on sick people who are trying to visit their doctor. There were five attempts to get this proposition through the parliament. God knows how many attempts there were to get it through their own party room, but there were at least five attempts to get it through the parliament. When parliament refused to do the bidding of the government, they decided that they were going to try to force doctors to do what parliament had refused to do. The mechanism for doing that was to freeze Medicare rebates so that doctors would be forced to pass those extra costs on to their patients, many of whom had no capacity to pay.
In the end Medicare payments have been frozen for so long that GP clinics have started levying up-front fees on their own patients, something which the government denies, but every member in this place knows is happening, because as they make their way around their electorates they see signs on the counter which announce to them and to anybody else who walks into that doctor's surgery that because of the decisions of this government they are going to have to increase fees, cease bulk-billing and pass those costs on to their patients.
In addition to freezing Medicare rebates there have been cuts to hospital funding. But directly in the area of medicines policy there have been increases in co-payments for patients. The $5 hike in prescription costs is going to push the cost of medicines beyond the means of many low-income Australians. The government wants to increase co-payments by $5 for general patients and by 80c for concessional patients. The people that need the help the most, that is the poor, the elderly and the sick, will be worst hit by the Liberals' and Nationals' plans to cut the PBS. A general patient, for example, filling two scripts per month—and that is not at all unusual—will be $100 a year worse off on medicines alone. Let's not forget that they have already had to go and see their doctor, and they are probably going to see their doctor several times a month, so that person is out of pocket every time they go and see their doctor by increasing amounts.
There is an alarming trend for people to delay medical treatment because they simply cannot afford the costs. This has been modelled by the Australian Social Health Atlases and, because of this independent research, we know that the incidence of this is occurring and increasing, but not uniformly—in wealthy parts of the country, the problem is less than in areas where there are people of lower SES backgrounds. Take the Prime Minister's electorate of Wentworth: around seven people in every 100 are in the situation where they are delaying medical treatment because they cannot afford it. That is at the lower end of the scale and, for each of those seven people, that is seven people too many. But I want to compare it to regional Australia, where I have a deep and abiding interest. If you look right across regional Australia, there are 16 people per 100 who are delaying medical treatment because they simply cannot afford it. This bill will do nothing to make that situation any better. In fact, the policies of the government are doing nothing to make that situation any better.
There are many regional electorates around the country where this is a significant problem. I am very close to the Illawarra and South Coast area. I look at what is happening in the electorate of Gilmore, where 13 out of every 100 people in the Shoalhaven and Eurobodalla area are delaying medical treatment already, but the member for Gilmore is supporting policies, proposals and legislation that will increase the costs of general prescriptions by $5 and for pensioners by 80c. This is an electorate that has the second-highest number of pensioners in any electorate in the country. I would have thought that the member for Gilmore would use this as an opportunity to make a very strong statement about her opposition to the government's medicines policies, which are going to make medicines more expensive for people within her electorate.
I also would have expected the member for New England to be doing the same thing. The Leader of the National Party, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, has some real hotspots in his area where people are delaying medical treatment because they cannot afford the bills. In some towns in his electorate, there are as many as 15 people out of every 100 who are delaying medical treatment because they cannot afford it yet he is a member of an executive and a government that are voting to make the situation worse.
In the electorate of Page, where the member has also supported initiatives, there is a very high number of retirees, low-income workers and pensioners. The member for Page is voting to increase the costs for general patients for each and every prescription by $5 per prescription and by 80c for every prescription for pensioners. This is in an electorate where 14 per cent of people—that is, 14 out of every 100 people in the Clarence Valley—are delaying medical attention because they cannot afford it. Right here, right now, they are doing it, and the policies of the government are making this worse.
The Bureau of Statistics Patient Experience Survey shows that up to 10 per cent of people are already delaying or avoiding filling a prescription due to the cost of that prescription. Now, of course, we would have even better data on this had the government not, as one of its very first initiatives, closed down the COAG data collection and reporting process, which enabled a clear line of sight to every state and region in the country to see what was happening in these critical areas of measurement and to see how we can better refine health care in the area of medicines and, in particular, in the area of the Commonwealth responsibility in relation to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
While we are supporting the bill before the House, we are not supporting the general thrust of the government's policy, which is making it harder for people to see a doctor, making it more difficult for people to get into a hospital and making it more expensive for people to get the medicines that their doctor is prescribing to them. This is not a recipe for good health care; this is a prescription to ensure that the inequalities that exist between regional and city Australia and between the wealthy and the poor in this country will get worse, and it requires urgent attention.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (19:05): Previous speakers on this side of the House have said that Labor will support this bill. It makes three minor technical changes to the administration of the PBS. But we are also using this as an opportunity to flag, loudly and clearly, the problems that we have with our health sector and the impact of the ongoing attacks from this government and those opposite on Medicare and on our universal health system.
I hear weekly from people in my own electorate, which is a regional electorate, about the worry that they have with out-of-pocket costs in relation to health care. Health care is one of the triggers for which many are seeking support from welfare agencies. It could be a car service, it could be an education expense, but too often, people are citing the reason they need help as out-of-pocket medical expenses.
One of the big costs for a lot of people is the cost of medicine. I know the government has dismissed concerns that have been raised by people when they said that the plan to increase every medicine by up to $5 was nothing to be worried about. But for people who need multiple prescriptions, it is a lot. The government continues to put forward, time and time again, the so-called zombie measures from the notorious 2014 budget despite the opposition to them in this place. They are determined to push through these changes which will see a co-payment for general patients of $5.80 for concession card. This is despite the fact we hear, over and over again, that cost is a reason why people are delaying seeking medical help and medical support.
I recently, on the back of the federal election campaign, ran my own series of health inquiries and Medicare forums in my electorate to ask people directly what their concerns were and what their experiences of primary healthcare were across the Bendigo electorate. We held several forums at Woodend, Kyneton, Castlemaine, Maldon, Heathcote, Elmore and across the greater Bendigo region. So we did not just stick to Bendigo, as in the CBD. We went out and asked people. We heard from health professionals, from pensioners from families, from patients, from people working in the sector. We asked them what their experiences of health care and of primary health care were, and what their recommendations were.
The findings of our inquiry are quite alarming. They back up a lot of the evidence that we have heard about regional people accessing health care. In our survey we found that 87 per cent of people believe that the cost of health care has gone up in the last 12 months, including the cost of prescriptions. Maybe it is not just the prescription that they get on PBS but the extras that they also have to pay for to go with that prescription. Forty per cent of the people who attended and participated in the Bendigo electorate said that they had delayed seeing the doctor because of price. One hundred per cent said that they believe that the government should protect Australia's universal health care system and invest more. This is the most alarming statistic that we found: on average, the out-of-pocket patient expenses for going to the GP was $21. This is the gap fee. In a sample of 23 clinics in the Bendigo region, only four now bulk-bill non-concession card patients and only 11 bulk-bill concession cardholders. Only four across greater Bendigo 100 per cent bulk-bill, with only one in the postcode 3550.
This has happened just recently. Under this government, we have seen a collapse in bulk-billing rates in my own electorate of Bendigo. It was actually quite shocking not only to listen to people about how 40 per cent are delaying to see a doctor but to then learn why it is only our community health service that bulk-bills now in the postcode 3550. Across greater Bendigo, if you do not go to a Bendigo community health facility then it is a Tristar, where it is a six-minute consultation. That is the only way you can see a bulk-billing doctor in the Bendigo electorate.
Some of the fees charged by doctors, even for concession cardholders, was as high as $31 out of pocket. We had someone attend the Heathcote hearing who travelled down from Rochester to say that in their town it is $50 out of pocket to see a GP. This is not the inner-city of Melbourne, where incomes are high; this is regional Australia and regional Victoria, where about 30 per cent of households in my electorate are trying to survive on $600 a week. These are households—tens of thousands of people—who are living on fixed income, whether they be people on disability pensions, aged pensions or unemployment benefits, or a group of growing underemployed people. These are people who are struggling to cover the costs of the basics and who are now paying more than ever to see the GP—and, if this government gets its way, even more for pharmaceutical benefits. This is a government that has lost touch with people on the ground when it comes to the cost of health care.
I will state the statistic again. Forty per cent of people that we surveyed in the Bendigo electorate, a regional town and a regional electorate, said that they delayed going to the doctor because of price. One particular person said, 'Yes, I've been to see a bulk-billing doctor,' but it is then the scripts on top of that. It is then the extra that they have to pay if they then have to go to the physio or an allied health service. The cost involved in accessing primary health care is continuing to increase. In one of case studies that we heard, a Castlemaine pensioner who is a two-time breast cancer survivor said, 'I now have Parkinson's. Every time I go to the specialist, like a speech therapist or a podiatrist, or a neuro nurse, it's $8.50 out of pocket.' That is what she pays on top of her service, which is currently bulk-billed. But once she hits her cap she then has to pay upfront. Last month, it totalled $200.
It is a well-kept secret that we really have a user-pays system. What we were hearing loudly and clearly from across the electorate is, whilst the ideal is to have a universal healthcare system, we do not have one currently. It is clearly a user-pays system, with people being asked to pay more and more.
There is also real concern from our GPs about workforce. We did invite a number of GPs to come and speak at our hearings. Seventy per cent of GPs in rural areas are bankrupt at some point. That is what one GP said to us. 'The cost of running private practice is going up, but the rebate remains the same. I've put in every bit of cash that I have to try and support the community. If I was sick tomorrow I would be in financial trouble. We need to increase the rebate.' Let's hope that the government and the health minister hears these concerns and, in the upcoming budget, unfreezes the rebate and lifts the GP rebate.
Burnout is a big problem for doctors in regional areas. They simply do not have patients that can afford to pay the $50 out-of-pocket expense to help the clinic break even. When you have areas like mine, where 30 per cent of people are trying to survive on $600 a week, you have a lot of concession card holders. It is no wonder that some clinics have now dropped bulk-billing concession card holders. If they want to keep their doors open, they are passing the cost onto the patient, and the result of that is what I have told you twice in this speech already: it means that 40 per cent of people in the Bendigo electorate are delaying going to the doctor, because of price. GPs who attended the hearings said that the Medicare rebate freeze is having a significant impact on their working life. For many GPs the rebate freeze was causing severe stress and anxiety, whilst the pressure to undertake shorter appointments was leading to lower job satisfaction, because they were worried about not delivering the advice that the patient needs. They were worried about poor health outcomes for their patients. We learnt in the hearings that we held how some GPs are doing their best and trying to be creative in making ways to ensure that their patient, as well as the GP, gets enough consultation time.
It should not have to be that hard for GPs in rural areas. It should not be that hard for patients in rural areas. We need to make sure that we see this government lift the GP rebate, lift the freeze in the upcoming budget, to ensure that our GPs get fairly rewarded for providing services. We also need to see this government significantly reinvest the money it has cut from primary health care, to ensure that out-of-pocket expenses are lowered. In regional areas like Bendigo, we literally now have a two-tiered system: those who can afford to pay for health care, and those who cannot. If the government gets away with its plan of reintroducing its zombie measures to increase PBS co-payments—up to $5 for general patients and then an extra 80c for concession patients—and cut the PBS even further, it will mean that the most vulnerable, the poorest, the elderly and the sick will be hit once again by this government.
I have to acknowledge that it is great to see some medicines come onto the PBS—medicines like Kalydeco, which I know is making a massive difference to some people with cystic fibrosis who are living in the area. I want to acknowledge Amelia and her family, who campaigned long and hard to see Kalydeco listed on the PBS. Amelia's parents tell me that her life has really turned around. She can now run with her sisters and not be out of breath. She is playing and she is happy, and for the first time in a long time their family have a future. Speaking of Amelia's future, their visits to the doctors are fewer and their visits to the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne have reduced. This is a good news story, but unfortunately it is rare. We have fewer and fewer good news stories coming from the Bendigo electorate. We have more and more stories of people delaying buying the medicines that they need, because they simply do not have the money. We have more and more people saying that they are delaying going to the doctor, because they cannot afford the out-of-pocket fees and, as I have already said, there is a growing trend amongst doctors of increasing the out-of-pocket fee, the gap fee, because of this government's freeze.
If we are genuine about a universal healthcare system, it needs to be a system that all citizens can engage in, where all have access to good quality health care. As I said, 100 per cent of people involved in the Save Medicare hearings that we had in the Bendigo electorate—from Elmore to Woodend, from Heathcote over to Maldon—said they want to see the government invest more in health care. A hundred per cent are saying that they believe in a universal healthcare system and that they want to see the government restore the funding that they cut.
Whilst this is a minor bill that makes only three technical changes to the administration of the PBS, it has allowed me to stand and outline to the House the findings of our recent hearings and the report that I released in the electorate last week, Save Medicare: a report into the experiences of central Victorians with our healthcare system. Its findings are alarming, but, equally, its recommendations are quite compelling, and I encourage the government and the minister to listen to the people of central Victoria and to take on board their concerns: reinvest the funding that has been cut from health care, drop the zombie measures which will see co-payments increase, and unfreeze the Medicare rebate, which has been frozen now for too long. We cannot afford to have 40 per cent of people not accessing GP services, because of cost increase. Only through federal government investment will we see that percentage decrease.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (19:20): It is a privilege and an honour to deliver the summing-up on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2016. On Thursday of last week I had the privilege of meeting with the doctors from The Hastings Clinic. Dr Peter Keillar and a number of his partners and doctors who practise within that clinic talked to me about many issues facing general practitioners. They echoed the words of Dr Bastian Seidel, the President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, and Dr Michael Gannon, the head of the AMA. Between the three groups—the doctors, the college of GPs and the AMA—they have set out their views, which I agree with absolutely: Australians care about three things overall with their national health and their approach to individual health: firstly, the ability to access doctors; secondly, the ability to access medicines, which this bill deals with specifically, squarely and appropriately; and thirdly, the ability to access hospitals. Everything else is a means of achieving those outcomes. Our health system is ultimately and absolutely about delivering access to doctors and nurses, access to medicines and access to our hospital system. That is the means of delivering people the best possible health outcome. As part of that, and fascinatingly, the doctors at The Hastings Clinic raised with me the telephone authorisation system for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. They raised the desire to have an automated system, which is something that can be done. So I am delighted to be able to say to Dr Peter Keillar and others from that clinic that right now we are bringing this proposed law to the parliament to deliver that outcome. I think it is a very important thing for the medical professionals and an even more important thing for the patients and for the pharmacists, who, respectively, take those medicines and dispense them. So this is a significant initiative.
It comes within a broader long-term national health plan aimed at a very simple goal—that is, to take what is a world-class health system, as it is supported by some of the best doctors and nurses in the world, and turn it into the best health system in the world. That is my goal and that is why we are setting out a plan to 2030. That plan is built on four core pillars. One is a rock-solid commitment to Medicare and to the PBS, or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We see that being strengthened with this bill. In particular, in relation to Medicare, there are two fundamentals. First, funding goes up each and every year from $22 billion, to $23 billion, to $24 billion, to $25 billion over the coming years. Secondly, we have just had the highest half-yearly bulk-billing figures for GPs in Australian history, almost 3½ per cent higher than when Labor left office. It has gone from 84.7 per cent a year ago to 85.4 per cent now. When we talk about bulk-billing what it means is that people are able to go to the doctor without having to dip into their pocket. More services, a higher rate of bulk-billing and more investment in Medicare—that is the reality of what is occurring.
Similarly, what we are seeing under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is the fact that we have listed $4.9 billion in new medicines since coming to office. That includes drugs for hepatitis C and, as the member for Bendigo mentioned, Kalydeco for beautiful young children aged 2 to 5, inclusive, to assist with cystic fibrosis. I had the fortune of meeting with some of these young children and their magnificent parents—brave young children and determined parents. This will transform their lives. These are drugs that on the open market would cost up to $300,000 a year, which is effectively beyond the reach of all but a tiny fraction of Australian families, even for those who are willing to sacrifice virtually everything. It is simply not possible without the government managing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in such a way that we can add Kalydeco and olaparib, a drug for ovarian cancer that would otherwise have cost over $100,000 a year for women suffering from this most difficult and tragic of conditions. So these are really powerful steps forward.
At the same time, as the second pillar what we also see is a commitment to strengthening the hospital system, both the public system, which is absolutely fundamental in Australia, and the private system, and the private health insurance system, to which we are fully committed as a government and as a coalition. Thirdly, the pillar of mental health and preventive health is being raised to the highest level for the first time in Australian health policy. It has equal billing with hospitals and Medicare, as it should, because mental health issues, as the National Mental Health Commission has outlined, affect four million Australians every year. Four million Australians—so we need more front-line services. Fourthly, with medical research we have the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Biomedical Translation Fund as the three core components of our commitment to creating cures and to having new diagnoses, new drugs and new devices that can assist people to manage and improve their health.
Against that background, this bill contributes to that process. In short, what the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2016 does is make it easier for doctors to prescribe. It will reduce by up to a half a million the number of phone calls each month. That is exactly what the doctors at The Hastings Clinic said to me: 'Less time on the phone. More time with the patients.' It provides a legal basis for prescriptions through an automated online system with real safeguards and real protections. It has the bipartisan support of the House. I thank the opposition, the Pharmacy Guild, the AMA, the RACGP, and the officers of the Department of Health. It is a real step forward and for those reasons I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (19:28): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I want to thank the opposition for their support, both in the bill and in the process for bringing this through the parliament and then to the public and the medical community as quickly as possible.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ) (19:29): I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Workplace Relations
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (19:29): I am rising tonight to speak about an issue that is very critical to my electorate and is indeed a critical issue facing this country: protecting penalty rates and the terrible impact that the Fair Work Commission's decision will have on people in my electorate. I, along with I think the majority of ordinary Australians, was shocked and appalled when the Fair Work Commission announced that it would cut penalty rates for workers in the retail, hospitality, fast food and pharmaceutical sectors, and of course I joined everyone on this side of the House to express that outrage. What was severely lacking, though, was outrage from those on the other side. There was no outrage from the Liberal and Nationals parties about the fact that these cuts to penalty rates will rip $77 a week from the pockets of around 700,000 hardworking Australians.
In my electorate the retail sector is the second-biggest employer, employing shy of 9,000 people.
Mr Tudge: Do you cover Coles and Woolies?
Ms RISHWORTH: I hear the interjection from the member for Aston. Maybe he should stand up for retail workers in my electorate as I am standing up for workers in my electorate. In total, 12,735 people and families in my electorate will have their take-home pay cut. And we hear a lot of protests from those on the other side, because they do not know what ordinary people's lives look like. They do not understand just how important these penalty rates are to people's take-home pay. We know that those opposite have a long history of cutting wages and conditions in this country. Indeed, this is the party of Work Choices. This is the party of changes that ripped away the basic safety net from so many workers. And I have a message for this government: penalty rates are not a gift. And cutting those penalty rates—even worse—is definitely not a gift. It is the attitude of those on the other side, who continually take this issue and give it mere lip service. Their excuse: 'The commission told us to do it, and we're going to stand by and let that happen.' Well, this is an outrage, and Labor will stand up for those people who desperately rely on penalty rates.
In question time today we heard about Kerry. Kerry is from my electorate, from Sellicks Beach, and she is a pharmacy assistant. I spoke to Kerry on the phone today and she said that yes, she will be a lot worse off as a result of this change, and it will affect her. But she also said to me that she is not just worried about herself; she is worried about society. She is worried about her son, who also relies on penalty rates. And she is worried about the fabric of this country—what this country will become when we are cutting the pay of our lowest-paid workers. But Kerry's message to me, despite this impacting her significantly, and while she was here at Parliament House today, was that she was here to have a conversation about how it will be bad for the country. And I think that is what a lot of people in this debate are saying: that actually increasing income inequality in this country by cutting the take-home of hundreds of thousands or hardworking Australians is an absolute disgrace.
I have had many constituents—not just Kerry—come to me and say that they are absolutely opposed to this decision. One constituent is a mother of two young children and is currently studying at university. She gave up her weekday job to pursue her dream to become a midwife. To get there, she needed two incomes, so this young mum is working weekends in retail. She works on the weekend so that her husband can be home to look after their children. They need this money to ensure that they live a life that has the basic necessities.
What this government is saying to this constituent as well as to Kerry is: 'We don't care about your living standards. We don't care about your take-home pay. We are happy to sit by and watch these cuts happen.' Well, this is a disgrace. Labor is giving the government the opportunity to get on board and support our protection— (Time expired)
Young Australians
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (19:34): One of the important opportunities we have as elected representatives in this parliament is to work with young people in our own local communities. It is an important part of our role, because everything we do in this chamber should be about securing a better future for that generation. Our work with young Australians reminds us that our responsibilities should not be set with just a three-year horizon. Our goal must be to create for the future an economic and social environment that is more prosperous, exciting and rewarding than we ourselves have enjoyed.
I represent an area which has one of the highest concentrations of schools in Sydney. They represent the finest of both government and independent sectors. I am particularly proud of their successes and those of their students—in academia, the arts, sport and the community. I am also always impressed with the understanding that students at both the primary and the secondary level have of our political system and their inquisitive minds about current political issues. I was reminded of this just today when I spoke with students from the new Anzac Park Public School during their Parliament House visit, and last Tuesday when I met with year 6 students at Loreto Kirribilli, who grilled me for more than an hour about politics and policy.
What also inspires me is the leadership and community service undertaken by students of all ages. It is easy to criticise those generations who follow us as we look at things through our own rose-coloured glasses and lose a little bit of memory about what life was like when we were young ourselves. Often we hear that gen Y and the millennials are too self-centred and impatient. I have occasionally accused some of my own staff of being just that. Yet what I see as I meet with students across my electorate is a group of young people who are incredibly aware of the world around them and the challenges we face as a society—a generation who willingly give of their time to support others through community and charity work.
I find this at every school—be it the year 7 students at Wenona I met with recently who are trying to establish a charity to help those with Rett syndrome, or the North Sydney Boys High School students I doorknocked with during last year's Red Shield Appeal, or the boys from Marist College who were determined to make a difference in educating their own peers and generation about domestic violence, or the many schools in my electorate who take a deep and compassionate view of Australia's role in supporting refugees. This spirit of community service is encouraged by our local schools, and they are to be congratulated for their efforts.
I also want to acknowledge the leadership shown by many students within their own school communities. School captains and prefects in both primary and secondary schools play an important role, and I am always wowed when I attend annual presentation days to hear the speeches given by year 6 and year 12 school captains. I only wish I had had their oratory skills when I was their age, and I am particularly grateful that they are not yet eligible to stand for parliament!
Last week I had the opportunity to meet with the current crop of year 12 student leaders when I hosted lunch for them in the New South Wales parliament. It was an opportunity for me to congratulate school captains on taking on the responsibilities of leadership in their busiest of school years and also to hear their views on the issues we face as a nation and as a community. All were impressive young men and women, dedicated to their fellow students and the broader community. They raised with me issues ranging from encouraging women into STEM subjects, to climate change, to LGBTI rights and housing affordability. Their understanding of current political issues was impressive.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all of those elected to leadership positions and to record their service in the parliamentary record. Those serving as school captains in my electorate this year include: from Chatswood High School, Nic Rodwell and Rachel Aquino; from Hunters Hill High School, Matthew Grey and Brigitte Villasmil Rivas; from North Sydney Boys High School, Alan Burzevski; from North Sydney Girls, Emily Kim; from Riverside Girls High, Aileen How; from Willoughby Girls, Samsitha Iver; from Loreto Kirribilli, the incredibly questioning Mia Toda; from Marist College North Shore, William Frazer and Luka Flannigan; from Marist Sisters College, Phoebe McDermott and Bellana Kallis; from Mercy Catholic College, Alex Swanson; from Monte Sant' Angelo Mercy College, Kate McNamara; from St Aloysius, Lewis McNamara; from St Ignatius Riverview, Jesse Gray; from St Pius, Joseph Unwin; from Shore, Max Sinclair and Toby Hoggett; from SCEGS Redlands, Annie Ryan and Bernado Croll; and from Wenona, Charlotte North. They are incredible student leaders, and I congratulate them on their service.
Infrastructure
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (19:40): A couple of Saturdays ago, a summer that has at times been infuriating and heartbreaking changed into something altogether different. Back in December, it was another story. Back in December, without good reason, without proper planning or preparation, work began on the destruction of 100 hectares of remnant bushland in the Beeliar Wetlands. Roe 8, a project that had gone nowhere for eight years, a road that quite literally goes nowhere, suddenly became a matter of huge urgency. And so began an incredible and difficult summer that has seen an extraordinary effort by thousands of ordinary people in my community who simply would not accept an abject failure of government—citizens who stood up, or sometimes sat down, linked arms, and said 'No.'
There has been a kind of poetry in what has occurred—even if sometimes it has been a tragic poetry, a poetry of dark symbols and bitter ironies. Walking east from the Shakespearian streets of Coolbellup, you come down the hill alongside a corridor of flattened bush to the edge of Bibra Lake at the intersection of Hope Road and Progress Drive. It is at Hope and Progress where two massive pine trees had stood since the day they were planted by John Dixon in the year 1900 to celebrate his marriage. A few weeks ago they were chopped down to stumps and left to stand in a fenced enclosure like exhibits in a display of human stupidity.
This is not a case of being hypersensitive—or of saying that no tree can ever be felled, because of course clearing has occurred and it will occur, and trees will sometimes be cut down for a railway or a road or a house or a hospital. But this was a case of utterly senseless destruction. And in the end it was that bloody-mindedness, that careless and senseless damage at the intersection of Hope and Progress, that told us everything we needed to know about the Barnett Liberal government and its federal Liberal boosters.
After last Saturday, with the election of the McGowan Labor government, the loss of those trees and all those hectares of bushland has been made totally pointless, as any reasonable person might have expected. Since the election, a number of Liberal ministers and party officials have said they knew last year the election was gone. Well, it is a shame they did not bother to speak up before the hundred hectares were cleared and the millions of dollars were wasted.
It is a shame—and I say it is a scandalous shame—that no-one in the Liberal government or in Main Roads Western Australia had the bottle to say, to a tired and desperate government, 'Hold on a minute; after eight long years of nothing, surely this can wait until April.'
My community wants to see investment in productive infrastructure at a time of high unemployment and record underemployment. That should include projects like the North Lake Road Bridge, and public transport in the form of METRONET; it should include support for freight-on-rail, and the development of South Quay and the Kwinana trade coast.
We need that investment to provide a comprehensive and long-term solution to freight and passenger congestion. We need that investment to underwrite the creation of jobs in shipbuilding, rail infrastructure and tourism. Yet so far all we have heard is threats from the Turnbull government to withhold funding from such projects and to give WA less than what we currently get, which is next to nothing.
The people of Western Australia have made their view of the Perth Freight Link perfectly clear. The claim by Liberal members, state and federal, that there was a 'silent majority' in support of this project has been thoroughly exploded. The truth is: the clear-voiced majority has spoken. It is the same clear voice you could hear from the protestors at dawn in Coolbellup, day after day, or out doorknocking in Bicton, or walking down yesterday with hundreds of community members to the intersection of Hope and Progress and seeing the new green shoots emerge from the waste.
At a time when people question the value of civic engagement, we should take heart from the battle fought to save the Beeliar Wetlands and to create a sensible transport future for Western Australia. I want to acknowledge, first and foremost, the strength of purpose and leadership of traditional owners and Noongar elders throughout the struggle. I also want to acknowledge and thank those people who made particular contributions on the front line: Kate Kelly, Felicity McGeorge and Save Beeliar Wetlands; Kim Dravnieks and Rethink the Link; Piers Verstegen and the Conservation Council; Barry Healy and Fremantle Road-to-Rail; local councillors like Tim Barling, Sam Wainwright, Rachel Pemberton and Phil Eva; and local mayors like Brad Pettitt, Logan Howlett and Ron Norris.
We should respect and take heart from what a community campaign can achieve—from the influence that ordinary citizens can have through activism, commitment, patience, forbearance, reason, resilience, and solidarity in a cause that is right. Even on the darkest days—which, of course, were typically white-hot in the dust and glare of a Freo summer—when we witnessed banksia woodland and wetland ecosystems being turned to mulch, there were hundreds and hundreds of men, women and children who continued to believe it was not too late to stop Roe 8. And you know what? Hallelujah! We were right.
Housing Affordability
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (19:45): The Prime Minister has declared that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. Jobs and growth, driven by innovation, is the positive and optimistic mantra. However, the sad truth is that this is a world away from how our country's politics has actually played out in recent times. The political contest now is one of constant negativity. It is a race to the bottom where if you are not the biggest loser then you are the winner. It is negative politics triumphing over the positive development of policy, but at what cost? Australians now, justifiably so, are uninspired and disappointed by our major parties and are deserting us by the legion. A report on the weekend showed that up to one-in-four supporters have left us. We are at breaking point.
What seems to be dominating is unilateral, top-down policymaking, as opposed to evidence-based policy development via public inquiries that are instigated by members of parliament after consulting with their communities. I have had thousands of conversations with my constituents in my six years as the member for Bennelong, and the most common topic of concern for them is housing affordability. Bennelong's housing costs have skyrocketed 74 per cent in the last three years—the fastest in Australia. I am happy to see that we are finally having discussions on how to fix our housing problems, but movement is coming too slow and too late, delayed by politicians playing politics. Home ownership builds a sense of pride, establishes more stable families and communities, and encourages a reliable workforce. It gives security, independence and a real meaning to commonwealth. The higher the level of home ownership, the more stable the real estate market. Scrapping negative gearing and taking the investors out of the market would destroy one of the foundation stones that establishes the value of real estate in Australia. It would come crashing down, hurting all property owners—investors and home owners alike. What is needed is a nuanced policy to calm this volatile market. I suspect there are members opposite who also share this concern.
Here lies my inherent issue with how politics is playing out currently, and I aim this criticism at both parties: we are creating policy based on staunch, unflinching philosophy and sticking with it to the bitter end—an inflexible rod to beat the other side with. For many months, many on this side of the House have repeated the same inflexible conviction that the only issue here is one of supply—something which is patently wrong for reasons I have explained before. As with all things, the truth lies within these extremes. People are being put off by the major parties because of our inflexible ideologies as much as because of the vitriol in our interactions with each other. In politics, policy should be king. Policy development must be pre-eminent.
A suite of policies must address four key issues. Control of investor-driven inflation, counterbalanced with the empowerment of first homebuyers, to manage the transition from a speculative-investor-driven market to one dominated by home owners will have a permanent stabilising effect, protecting the assets of all current home owners and investors. These key policies live in the sensible centre between the extremes found in the positions taken by both parties to the last election. They involve a lever to control investor-driven inflation—a lever administrated by regulators installed to calibrate the level of LVRs. This must be aligned to deductibility. Once the market has stabilised and investment is controlled in this way it will allow for measures to assist homebuyers into the market. The use of super should only be considered on the proviso that the home remains the property of the super fund. It would, therefore, become an assessable asset. This will get more people into homes earlier and reduce many people's reliance on the age pension. Strategic decentralisation to reinvigorate regional areas to unlock their potential and boost affordable supply demonstrates beyond any argument the purpose of high-speed rail in Australia. These are sound, well-worked-through plans, developed through public inquiries with expert, verified evidence—a product of constructive bipartisan engagement.
This issue of home ownership is an opportunity to commence a contest of vision, ideas and policy development that will allow all Australians the chance to fulfil their dreams. The greatest challenge our major parties must now address is to recognise that their ceaseless negativity—(Time expired)
Health Care
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (19:50): We have been hearing some rumblings and some vague references in the past few days about the government thinking it may lift its forecast six-year Medicare freeze. Well, I say hallelujah; it is high time. Australians know that when they go to the doctor, because of these cuts and this freeze, they are paying too much and waiting too long for the health care they need and deserve, but an end to the Medicare freeze, if it comes, is not nearly enough. Every one of this government's savage cuts to the healthcare budget must be dropped in the upcoming budget. These cuts will mean the cost of vital medicines and the cost of life-saving scans, Pap smears and blood tests will all go up. These cuts will cause patients to pay more and more out of their own pocket at every step of the way in our struggling healthcare system. Not only will patients pay more at the doctor, but they will also wait longer to see specialists and to have surgery.
On the point of waiting too long, I would like to tell the House about an elderly couple from my electorate of Paterson. They contacted my office last week. This fellow said he had been trying to get an appointment for his wife to see an ear, nose and throat specialist for four years—four years in Australia in 2017! He had gone to the John Hunter Hospital. I did not believe it, actually, when he said this. I did some research and, yes, it is true. In fact, our local paper, The Newcastle Herald, reported last May that waits to see ear, nose and throat specialists at the John Hunter Hospital had blown out to three years. Almost a year later, a wait of four years is entirely believable. It is disgusting, reprehensible and unfathomable but, in the circumstances of what has been reported in the media, entirely believable. For four years the lovely gentleman's wife has had extreme discomfort—persistent earaches, headaches and fluid building up in her ear—not to mention the fear and dread of what might actually be wrong with her and causing these awful symptoms.
Every year for four years, her husband phoned the John Hunter to make sure she was still on the list. And every year, he was assured: 'Yes, she's still on the list. Just hang in there.' Finally, there was the last phone call, and, lo and behold, she had an appointment. After an X-ray, an MRI and several doctors looking at her, she was diagnosed with a rare condition that, if left untreated, could lead to facial palsy and complete hearing loss. The tumour is most likely benign, and for that she and her husband are entirely and genuinely grateful. But it does need to be surgically removed—and quickly.
Mr Speaker, a four-year wait to see an ear, nose and throat specialist is not acceptable. The Newcastle Herald last year reported that waits for orthopaedic surgeons and gastroenterologists could be just as long. Every Australian should have access to affordable, quality health care when and where they need it. This is Labor policy. A Medicare freeze for six years and ripping funds out of public hospitals: I have to say this is Liberal policy.
Doctors have been clear that the government's cuts are driving a decline in services. I had an email from a doctor in my electorate who stated: 'I am a doctor, a GP, who moved to Maitland some 10 years ago to provide service to the community where there was a great shortage of doctors. Over the past several years, we have had the government's decision to freeze Medicare rebates. Since then, there has been continuous financial pressure on me to run the business. There are four other doctors working at this medical centre, but a Medicare freeze is not as important to them as it is to me because they get their commission and go. I am the one who has to pay for everything. Some owners of medical practices say that it is better to close the door, go to a big city and work on commission, saying, "At least we'll know what money we'll make per day." If this happens, many people will suffer from a shortage of doctors in our area. I have to say I cannot pass on the costs to patients. It is not fair. People here already have financial difficulty.' That is one terrific doctor from my area.
If it comes off, yes, it is good news that the government is going to put an end to this Medicare freeze, but it surely must come off. It is just the beginning though. Proper funding for our hospitals must also be restored. An end to the Medicare freeze will not be enough to undo the damage. The Australian Medical Association and a litany of people across our country know that they are not being well served by this government and they are not being well served by a healthcare system in dire need of funding and attention.
Sweeney, Mr Thomas 'Tom' Leo
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (19:55): I rise tonight to acknowledge the death two weeks ago of Thomas Leo Sweeney and to place on record my condolences to his family and friends. I first met Tom Sweeney some 20 years ago and had many conversations with him over a long period of time. Indeed, he served as the chairman of my federal electorate council for a number of years. Tom was an impressive and forthright man with a clear direction, a love of family and friends and a very clear set of values.
Tom Sweeney was born in Brisbane in 1929, the second of six children, the son of Tom senior, a journalist and a rugby league international, and Mary. He was educated at St Joseph's College, Gregory Terrace, where he excelled as an all-round sportsman. On finishing school, his father found him a job as a technician in the engineering faculty at the University of Queensland. This led to a long, industrious and illustrious career as a civil engineer.
But first of all, Tom was a champion sportsman: the captain of the school's first XI cricket team, a six-times Queensland open men's high jump champion—he jumped off for selection in the Olympic Games—an A-grade tennis player and a golf player with a near-scratch handicap. He was also competitive at gymnastics, basketball and even table tennis. But it was as a fullback on the rugby union field that he achieved his sporting fame—initially with his beloved Brothers Rugby Club, then representing Queensland and eventually the Wallabies. He toured South Africa with the Wallabies in 1953, representing his country 15 times, including in the first Test. The following year, he played against the Fijians and was selected for the Wallaby tour against the All Blacks. Sadly, broken ribs sustained in a typically courageous tackle on a very large Fijian kept him out of the tour. Shortly thereafter, a knee injury ended his rugby career prematurely at the age of 24.
While continuing to work at the university, he also worked part time for Channel 7 as an on-air sports commentator. It was there that he met a young choreographer and dancer on the Bandstand show; she was named Carolyn Yule. Their wedding was big news at the time in Brisbane, with a front-page picture in The Courier Mail. The couple thereafter moved for Tom to start work as an engineer on the Snowy Mountains scheme—something which is topical at the present time, Mr Speaker—with his expertise in metallurgy, acquired at university, being a valuable commodity.
There they started a family of six children, with Tom working six days a week and then spending every spare hour playing games with his children. Tom always said that, despite everything else he had done, his proudest achievement was his children. He rejoiced in everything all his children did and achieved.
The collapse of the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne brought the family to my city for what was supposed to be a two-year stint, but it became permanent. Indeed, Tom became the chief resident engineer on the reconstruction of the West Gate Bridge and saw this magnificent project through to its completion.
After retiring from work, he remained very active in politics—in my local electorate, in particular—as well as with golf and his continued love of rugby, particularly with the Melbourne University Rugby Football Club.
In the end, he passed away peacefully holding his wife's hand. He is survived by siblings Damien and Germaine; his wife, Carolyn; five of his six children—Matthew, Luke, Mary Ellen, Rebecca and Tom—and his adored eight grandchildren.
In his eulogy, his son Tom said:
In this era, when it seems that fame and public admiration are increasingly obtained with fewer and fewer substantive and worthwhile attributes, Tom was someone who lived a life defined by strong values, absolute integrity, the pursuit of excellence in all things and an unfailing loyalty and devotion to family that were the values that defined him.
He used to tell his children when they were young that we are all just a set of attitudes. We didn't listen, but of course he was right.
He was truly someone who has left a wonderful legacy and the world a much better place—for the things he built, for the standards he set and for the family he raised.
Mr Speaker, vale Tom Sweeney. May he rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Menzies. It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned until 12 pm tomorrow.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Katter To present a Bill for an Act to establish a People of Australia's Commission of Inquiry into banking and financial services in Australia, and for related purposes. (People of Australia's Commission of Inquiry (Banking and Financial Services) Bill 2017)
Mr Leeser to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP):
(a) has been operating since 1948;
(b) aims to promote and support English language skills for new migrants and humanitarian entrants;
(c) is the Government's largest English language program;
(d) provides English language training for new members of the Australian community; and
(e) provides essential life skills for all eligible new migrants and humanitarian entrants;
(2) acknowledges the importance of the AMEP in delivering foundation English language skills to newly arrived migrants and humanitarian entrants to prepare them for work and participation in Australian society; and
(3) notes:
(a) that last year more than 59,000 new migrants and humanitarian entrants benefited from training delivered by the AMEP; and
(b) this Government's ongoing support for the AMEP, in the interests of all Australians.
Mr Entsch to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 24 March is World Tuberculosis Day, and marks the anniversary of German Nobel Laureate Dr Robert Koch's 1882 discovery of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis;
(b) tuberculosis is contagious and airborne, ranking as the world's leading cause of death from a single infectious agent;
(c) in 2015, 1.8 million people died from tuberculosis worldwide and 10.4 million people became sick with the disease, with over 60 per cent of cases occurring in countries in our region;
(d) Papua New Guinea (PNG) has one of the highest rates of tuberculosis infection in the Pacific, with an estimated 33,000 total cases including 2,000 drug-resistant cases, in 2015; and
(e) tuberculosis is:
(i) the leading cause of death among HIV positive people—HIV weakens the immune system and in combination with tuberculosis is lethal, each contributing to the other's progress; and
(ii) tuberculosis is considered a preventable and treatable disease, however many current treatment tools—drugs, diagnostics and vaccines—are outdated and ineffective;
(2) recognises:
(a) the impact of the increased support by Australia to combat tuberculosis in PNG, and the need for continued support for prevention and treatment, as well as development of new tools and strategies to combat tuberculosis, consistent with the World Health Organisation's 'The End TB Strategy';
(b) current Australian Government funding of health and medical research is helping to bring new medicines and diagnostic tests to market for tuberculosis and other neglected diseases; and
(c) the ongoing support for research and development of new simple and affordable treatment tools for tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is essential if the goals of the End TB Strategy are to be met;
(3) acknowledges the work of Australia's partners in fighting tuberculosis, including the Burnet Institute and Global Fund, in partnership with the Government of PNG and the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre's 'Treaty Village Resilience Project' in building capacity in villages of the Western Province, to deliver platforms for the delivery of improved health services including tuberculosis prevention and treatment; and
(4) calls on the Australian Government to provide continued funding for tuberculosis prevention and treatment in PNG, and continued funding for the development of improved diagnostics and medications to combat tuberculosis, beyond 2017.
Mr Entsch to move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the Australian Government grants free access and unrestricted travel to officials, journalists and citizens from the People's Republic of China, and the same level of access and freedom to travel to Tibet is not afforded to Australian officials, journalists and citizens by the Government of the People's Republic of China;
(b) Australian officials, journalists and travellers wanting to visit China's Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan autonomous prefectures in China's Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces are routinely denied access and if access is granted, are subjected to close monitoring, compelled to join government-organised tours, and/or face other restrictions;
(c) repeated requests since mid-2014, for the Chinese Government to respond positively to members of the relevant Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group seeking approval for a delegation to visit China's Tibetan areas, and that over the same period, delegations representing China's Tibetan Autonomous Region, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces have received approval to enter Australia and travel freely within the country; and
(d) reciprocity is a fundamental principle of diplomatic practice that promotes mutual exchanges, mutual benefit and the development of friendly relations between countries;
(2) expresses concern that:
(a) China has regularly closed the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas in China to any entry by foreign tourists; and
(b) Australian officials, journalists and citizens regularly face refusals and restrictions when applying to visit Tibetan areas in China;
(3) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) renew efforts to ensure reciprocal access to China for Australian officials, journalists and citizens and for travel within China—as Chinese officials, journalists and citizens have to Australia for travel within Australia; and
(b) ensure that visits to China by Australian officials and journalists, to a similar extent as visits to Australia by Chinese officials and journalists, are unrestricted and allow open interaction with the local population, freedom to move about and observe unhindered, and promote genuine understanding between the peoples of the two countries; and
(4) calls on the Chinese Government to lift restrictions on access to China's Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan autonomous prefectures in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces for officials, journalists and citizens from Australia and respond positively to the pending request by Australian parliamentarians to visit Tibetan areas in China.
Mr Albanese to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the growth of the craft brewing sector in recent years as a generator of employment, tourism and exports in capital cities and regional communities;
(2) further notes:
(a) there is an inequity between how Commonwealth excise is calculated for small and large scale brewers which disadvantages the craft brewing sector;
(b) that excise currently accounts for a disproportionate amount of the costs of production for small brewers and the calculation of excise imposes a significant burden on them; and
(c) this small business sector provides local employment and is an emerging tourism attraction; and
(3) urges
(a) the Australian Government to ensure policy settings which encourage the realisation of the potential of the craft brewing sector; and
(b) state and local governments to update their planning controls and development approval to facilitate the growth of the craft brewing sector.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Conroy ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Lalor Electorate
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:30): It is my pleasure today to talk about what it means to live in a democracy. I have always believed that an informed, engaged and articulate community will be heard by government, will have the power to interact with government, will be able to influence the decision makers. This weekend in Wyndham we had the Weerama community festival, and it was a great celebration this year. It was a community coming together with community floats and with community members volunteering as marshals and traffic controllers. It was a great, great day. I had the honour of being the MC for the parade, which gave me an opportunity to say hello to all those people who fought so valiantly across the last month to have their informed voices heard by our state government. To the state government's credit, they acted like a good government and responded. They listened to the community and the youth detention centre in my community will now be placed on a site that my community accepts—away from the centre of town, away from our front yard. It is now going to be placed in a much more sensible position because my community got engaged and informed around the issues, joined together and ran a strategic campaign. It has always been my belief because it has been my experience that that is what communities need to do to ensure that they are at the tables when the decisions are made.
Last week, I also had the pleasure of running the first Lalor SRC forum for 2017. This is a tradition I began on becoming the member for Lalor and it was my pleasure to again work with 20 schools across a day—with the young people in my electorate from the ages of those in grade 4 through to year 12—about just those principles on how to enact change in your community and in your school community. What skills do you need? As a leader, how do you know what your community thinks about something? How do you ask? How do you get that feedback and what do you do with that feedback? How do you plan for change, measure the impact that you have had in a community and go back to the issues and work again?
It is a great way to spend a day working with young people and passing on that kind of knowledge, working intensively with them on how they might influence decision makers on the ground in their schools to create better school communities. It is an absolute honour to be the member for Lalor, to represent people who know full well the power of engagement—the power of being engaged politically and at the community level. We work hard in my community in a growth corridor to build community every day from the ground up. I am incredibly proud to be the member for Lalor.
Leak, Mr Bill
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:34): Last week, with the tragic death of Bill Leak from a massive heart attack at the age of 61, this nation lost a national treasure. It is worth reflecting on the last year of Bill Leak's life. There were two campaigns against him. One was a campaign by Islamic terrorists to kill him. He was forced to move his family and live in a safe house because of those threats. There was a second campaign against him, and that was to silence him.
I would like to quote the late Bill Leak's own words from his submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which he made only a few months before his tragic passing:
… I was put through two months of incredible stress by the Commission’s investigation—
referring to the Australian Human Rights Commission. He went on:
The first complainant … didn’t have to justify anything she did. No one asked her any questions and it didn’t cost her a cent … the tortuous process had thrown my life into a state of utter chaos, and it’s not over yet …
He continued:
… the possibility that I may yet be required to defend myself in court still hovers, like a dark cloud, over my life.
Thirty-six hours before his passing, on a Wednesday evening, he also said:
Then, in October last year I realised there’s another group of people who are just as capable of making life hell for me if they fail to be amused by my wit and artistry.
Of course, he was saying those words tongue-in-cheek. He continued:
It’s just my luck that causing offence has been made an offence at the same time that taking offence has become fashionable. So now there’s a mob that won’t only punish you if your cartoon offends them, they’ll punish you if it’s offended someone else. They may be a little less murderous than your Islamist terrorists, but they’re no less unhinged and dangerous.
What happened to Bill Leak is shameful. It should never, ever happen in our country. No artist should ever have to justify their work before some government bureaucrat. That is the current situation that we have in our nation.
Some people have called Bill Leak a racist, but I will leave the last words on that to Bill Leak's friend Warren Mundine. He said:
Those who think it condemns all indigenous people should examine their own biases— (Time expired)
Centrelink
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (10:37): I rise today to speak about the robo-debt debacle. It may no longer be in the news every single day but it is absolutely in the lives of many thousands of Australians every single day. Today I would like to talk about one example: an aged care cleaner, Sheree, who lives in Tenambit in my electorate. Sheree has been a regular visitor to my office over this 'summer of hell' that the government has put people through by hounding them over alleged Centrelink debt and threatening to sick the debt collectors onto them if they do not pay up. We have heard what a total debacle robo-debt has been from the get-go, but that is not my focus today. Sheree is my focus today.
Sheree, to be frank, has had a gutful, and you cannot blame her. For the second time this year, my office has made representations to Minister Tudge on behalf of Sheree, trying to sort out her alleged Newstart debt. Sheree does not believe she owes anything at all to Centrelink, and she has cooperated by providing payslips and tax returns to prove it. But, fearing that she would be hounded by debt collectors, as the government has threatened, she entered into a payment plan of $50 a week while she tried to sort it out. She has officially had enough, and who can blame her? In October last year, when Centrelink first made contact, Sheree's debt was stated to be $3,700. In December, it was reduced to $2,800. In January, it was reduced to $1,100. But then, in February, it went back up to $1,500.
The situation, as I wrote to Mr Tudge, is completely untenable for Sheree. She has made every effort to supply all of the evidence that has been asked for. She has chased up old employers—and people know how difficult that can be—to get payslips. She has tracked down bank statements. She has submitted and resubmitted tax returns. She has done everything that has been asked of her, and yet it still cannot be sorted out. 'Why', she asks, 'would a debt go from $3,700 down to $2,800, down again to $1,100 and then up again to $1,500?'
I have asked Mr Tudge for a final review to be carried out, so a final amount of debt can be determined in what seems to be the debt lucky dip—who knows what she will get next?—so that Sheree can get on with her life. She has spent considerable time and energy trying to sort this out, and it has caused a bucketload of stress for her. Of course, we all know she is not alone. More than 217,000 notices were issued by the robo-debt system. It is an algorithm clearly out of control. It is useless. I have to say, it is a lot like our present government.
People Who Care: Seniors Outdoor Fitness
Swan Electorate: Commonwealth Home Support Program
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:40): Earlier this month I was asked to launch a world record attempt right in the heart of my electorate. Before I get into that world record attempt, let me tell you a little bit about the organisation which is the current holder of the world record and which organised this second attempt.
The organisation is People Who Care. It is a community-based, not-for-profit organisation based near the border of my electorate in the suburb of Guildford, which my good friend the Hon. Ken Wyatt looks after. It has been around since 1980 and relies on donations and funding to provide essential care services such as garden maintenance, transport and domestic services for those who need it throughout the Perth metropolitan area. As part of these services People Who Care is allowing more people to live independently and improve their quality of life through regular social contact and other services. Its services and programs are designed to assist people to remain in their homes and enjoy life whilst maintaining a connection to the community.
Now let me tell you about this world record attempt, which my wife Cheryle, my mother-in-law and I all took part in. People Who Care held a health expo at Sir James Mitchell Park in South Perth, which is in my electorate. This expo had stalls and activities aimed at over-50s and was an opportunity for the community to come together. Part of this day was the outdoor fitness world record attempt, which aimed to have the most people aged over 55 taking part in a light exercise activity for 30 minutes. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be interested to know that the world record was first held by the Kiwis, then it was held by New South Wales, and it is now held in Western Australia.
Last year People Who Care had 148 people take part and currently hold the record. Unfortunately, even with me recruiting my wife and mother-in-law, we failed to beat that record this year. However—and I am sure I can speak for those who took part—the fun of exercising in a large group on the beautiful South Perth foreshore was worth it, and I thank People Who Care for organising the day and look forward to the next attempt.
Before I finish up I want to mention some of the outstanding work and contribution that this government is making in this sector in helping older people stay in their own homes longer. In Swan, approximately $300,000 has been made available for home support services through the Commonwealth Home Support Program growth funding round. This Commonwealth Home Support Program offers more choice and flexibility for older people. The program helps frail, older people who are in need of assistance to continue living independently at home and in their communities for longer. It helps these people avoid or delay having to move to a complex form of aged care. This is another example of the coalition government getting on with the job, by supporting people in their local communities.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member for that contribution, and I am sure the member for Hasluck would be honoured to know that you mentioned him in your speech.
Pensions and Benefits
Mr SWAN (Lilley) (10:43): Over the four long years of the Abbott-Turnbull government pensioners in Lilley and right across the country have endured economic assault after economic assault from the Liberal Party. First of all the Liberals tried to cut the age pension by $80 a week over a decade. After that they decided to get stuck into the incomes of part pensioners, and some 330,000 part pensioners right across Australia had their incomes cut. Then they came up with the bright idea to slash pensioner concessions by $1.3 billion—and there is much more.
But now 1.7 million low-income Australians will lose their energy supplement if Malcolm Turnbull's cuts pass the Senate. For single pensioners this will be $14.10 per fortnight, or $365 a year. For couple pensioners this will be $21.20 per fortnight, which is around $550 a year. These are people who have worked hard all of their life to make our country great, and this is what the Liberals do to them. The response I have had in the electorate has been phenomenal. People are writing in and talking about the fact that they live in the dark now; they can barely afford their power bills.
This is a government whose top priority is to hack into the living standards of pensioners and other low-income earners whilst at the same time giving corporates a $50 billion tax cut. This is a government which is very strong in controlling the weak and very weak in controlling the strong. Labor has a record of fighting for pensioners. Labor, in 2009, gave pensioners in this country the single biggest increase they had ever received in the history of the age pension. Ever since then the Liberals have set about pulling that apart and cutting it. On this side of the House we are fighting these cuts every step of the way. We understand that we live in a community; we do not live in a corporation. The Prime Minister, the 'Prince of Point Piper', thinks we live in a corporation.
Pensioners are under assault daily through the Centrelink debt recovery system, the so-called robocall system. They have all been 'Tudged'. Mr Tudge has been out there hacking away at their income. I have had numerous pensioners in my local area come to me with bills that could not be justified. At every level—the level of the pension, the level of concessions and now the energy supplement—they are under assault. Pensioners in Australia, who have worked hard to make our country great, deserve a fair go. They deserve a lot more than the attacks they are receiving from the Turnbull government.
Toowong Rowing Club
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (10:46): The Toowong Rowing Club has a race-winning octogenarian eight. For them, rowing never gets old. The club, with an active membership of more than 250 rowers, has, however, seen its fair share of ups and downs throughout its 128-year history. It was established originally in 1889, downstream from its current location, and has overcome many a flood that has washed it away.
Some will remember the Toowong Rowing Club when it was located near the aptly named Regatta Hotel. The most notable change overcome by the club, still a vivid memory for many members, was the 1974 floods. Those floods washed the Regatta clubhouse away. However, a group of visionary members, including Cal Malouf, the late Jim Downie, Jack Hutchinson and Russell Kerrison, turned this challenge into an opportunity. Starting from scratch, this awesome foursome went about funding, designing and building the modern rowing club we now know, located at a leafy site near the University of Queensland on the banks of the Brisbane River. The club pays homage to the gentlemen who provided major financial assistance for the re-establishment through the Malouf and Hutchinson rooms and Silvio's Bar, named after Silvio Pradella. For a club that literally had only a few boats left in its sheds, the membership proved strong and rallied to fundraise in order to pay for the new site—and these were the days long before government grants were so readily available. Club president Kerry O'Rourke is justifiably proud of the prestigious status this Brisbane icon maintains. In 2016 the Toowong Rowing Club attained a national rating as No. 1 in masters rowers and No. 2 in high performance.
Gone are the days of rowing being considered an exclusive recreational activity of elite private schools and wealthy individuals. The Toowong Rowing Club welcomes all—young and old, men and women. It has members of all ages and walks of life. Their stories and memories from years past give the club a unique heartbeat. The clubhouse may be relatively new in comparison with the club's existence, but 128 years of spirit is noticeable in this well-defined community of rowers.
Whether you are eight or 80, rowing is a sport of mateship and fitness. It is about those very early morning starts but also those late-night finishes catching up with old friends. I expect that in 80 years time many more generations will have enjoyed the Toowong Rowing Club and will look back at the foundations of Brisbane's rowing scene with pride. Old rowers never die; they just keep going backwards.
parkrun
Mr HART (Bass) (10:49): parkrun is an international phenomenon. At present there are 210 parkrun locations within Australia. These events are free, organised by local volunteers and inclusive in that they are accessible for young or old, fit or unfit, male or female, regardless of ability or disability. According to the parkrun international site there are 1,074 events worldwide in Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, the UK—where it was founded—and the United States.
The central idea behind parkrun is very simple: it is a weekly, timed five-kilometre run or walk over the same course each week at the same time, without obligation or cost. Such is the popularity of parkrun that many cities have multiple parkruns. At present Tasmania has parkrun events in Launceston, Hobart and Devonport, with Georgetown to commence shortly, as well as events elsewhere in the state, notably Windsor, in my electorate. I ran my first parkrun at Launceston on 23 February 2013. I have now run 139 parkruns, including 133 at Launceston, three at Albert Park in Melbourne, two at Burley Griffin here in Canberra and one at Woodhouse Moor in Leeds in the United Kingdom.
There are many obvious physical, as well as mental, health benefits from undertaking parkrun. Not only is there a very clear correlation between physical exercise and mental health, but the social aspect of parkrun is significant. As a regular at my home parkrun and also a visitor to other parkruns, it is interesting to note that the atmosphere of a parkrun event is welcoming and inviting. Each event will welcome visitors and first-timers and, in particular, people who arrive early, so as to talk amongst themselves, or who will cheer later finishers across the line and attend coffee after the event.
It is very important to note that parkrun is not a competitive event in the sense of a race. parkrun can be an individual challenge in that an individual might be motivated to better their time so as to produce a personal best. However, every regular parkrun attendee knows that the event is non-judgemental in that no-one is expected to perform at a high level, or indeed to run. As a consequence you will often see people who will walk rather than run just to support someone who might be injured, or who is a new participant or a child. The inclusive nature of the event is also emphasised by the fact that elite runners will sometimes walk the course or be seen walking with family or a dog or with a pram just in order to enjoy the social aspect of the event.
As the event is put on by volunteers, all participants are encouraged to volunteer three times each year, and participants are encouraged to thank volunteers as they run or walk around the course. Volunteers also offer encouragement to participants. Launceston parkrun started four years ago with 92 participants, and this calendar year there have been four Launceston events with more than 300 attendees each Saturday morning.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the honourable member would be referred to as an elite runner in that space.
Lamont, Mr Andy
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (10:52): I would like to inform the House of a constituent in my electorate of McPherson who encapsulates the spirit of adventure and generosity that Australians have become renowned for. His name is Andy Lamont, and he is a 58-year-old grandfather from the suburb of Clear Island Waters. But he has been facing anything but clear waters as he attempts to sail solo, non-stop and unassisted around the world in a westbound direction against the prevailing winds. He is doing this in a boat that is smaller than 40 feet, or 12.1 metres.
A pest controller by trade, Andy is married to Deb and is the father of three adult daughters and a grandfather to one. Andy set off from the Gold Coast on 3 October last year with the expectation that he would not be touching dry land for nearly a year. He left Australian waters around Christmas last year, passed the southern tip of Africa in mid-February and, as of yesterday, was off the coast of Brazil, approaching the half-way mark of his epic journey. To keep him sustained he has taken with him 50 food packs and close to 300 litres of water. If he runs out of supplies or his equipment breaks, Andy is not allowed to receive help from anyone if he is to break the world record. He has already been buffeted by rough seas while crossing the Indian Ocean and can expect more big seas throughout the second half of his journey.
Personal achievement is not Mr Lamont's only reason for attempting this record; he is using the world record attempt to raise money for the Fred Hollows Foundation. The foundation has been set up to continue the famous work of ophthalmologist Dr Hollows, fixing the eyesight of people in Eritrea and Nepal. Fred Hollows' humanitarian work saw him named Australian of the Year in 1990, and the foundation was set up after he died in 1993. I encourage anyone who would like to contribute to the cause to visit the foundation's website at hollows.org.au.
Andrew Lamont says he first thought of attempting this world record 25 years ago. The voyage that he is undertaking has been described as 'the Mount Everest of sailing'. In his latest blog post overnight, Andy indicated he has encountered major troubles. He changed course after his autopilot stopped working and his communication systems are failing. This means he cannot get adequate weather reports as he approaches one of the most treacherous parts of the voyage, around Cape Horn. Unfortunately, Andy has had to make the decision to stop for repairs because it is simply too dangerous to continue. He is understandably devastated by this, but I would like to congratulate him on making it as far as he did, and I am sure that he will be given a stirring welcome home when he returns to the Gold Coast. Andy, I am so proud of you. You have done an absolutely fabulous job. Well done.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member and I look forward to the member updating the House when Mr Lamont does return home safely to the embrace of his family.
Western Australian State Election
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (10:55): On the weekend before last, my constituents voiced their support for a fresh approach to WA loud and clear at the ballot box, electing a Mark McGowan WA Labor government with a thumping majority. Sitting state Labor members Dr Tony Buti and Chris Tallentire's hard work over the last four years paid off. They both held their seats with swings to Labor of up to 13 per cent. In Southern River, in the north of my electorate, local teacher Terry Healy was elected on an 18 per cent swing; and, to the south and east, former policeman Barry Urban became the first Labor member for the seat of Darling Range, on a 19 per cent swing. In the west of Burt, residents in the electorate of Jandakot delivered a 19.4 per cent swing to Labor's Yaz Mubarakai. It was enough to get Labor across the line and oust a future Liberal leadership hopeful. This is an overwhelming show of support for Labor's plan for Perth's south-east: fixing Denny Avenue, building a new Armadale Road bridge and a Thornlie to Cockburn rail line through Canning Vale, as well as opening the Armadale police station 24/7. These are commitments I have fought for since day one of my campaign, and I look forward to their delivery now.
Whilst this election was undoubtedly fought on state issues, the implications for those in this place are also far-reaching. The Liberal-One Nation preference deal, which was orchestrated with the help of WA senators Cormann and Cash, resoundingly backfired on both parties. Those considering a vote for One Nation came to Labor as soon as it became a apparent that a vote for One Nation was a vote to sell Western Power, to cut penalty rates and to support the Liberals. That brings me to the second federal factor: the Prime Minister's support for penalty rate cuts—backed by Colin Barnett mid-campaign. A post-election ReachTEL poll appearing in today's West Australian shows a full 62.6 per cent of respondents in the 18 seats that came to Labor oppose penalty rate cuts. Perhaps that is why the PM only visited WA for half a day. He spent more time flying over Western Australia to other countries than he did in WA. While Bill Shorten campaigned strongly for Labor in the election, the Prime Minister was sinking schooners on election day for a satirical news site in Sydney. WA can no longer be taken for granted by the Liberals. After four years of this Abbott-Turnbull government ignoring WA's infrastructure needs and investing no new money in rail projects, all it has done is latched itself to the discredited Perth Freight Link. The Turnbull government must accept WA's calls to reallocate this funding to projects that Western Australians actually want, like Metronet. If not, then WA's already low share of Commonwealth funding will plummet.
That brings me, of course, to the GST. The Prime Minister told Western Australians less than 12 months ago that he would introduce a floor, but then he walked away from that promise. The hypocrisy of members opposite coming out last week and saying something needs to be done about the GST is astounding. The ball is now firmly in the court of the members for Pearce, Hasluck, Stirling, Swan and Canning. They know the writing is on the wall. It is the least the Liberals could do for our state after years of neglect.
Innovation
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (10:58): Next Monday in the Great Hall, we are going to have the innovation fair, where great innovations from the innovation capital of Australia, Macquarie Park, will be present. We will have a hydrogen cell from the Hyundai motor car company that powers their hydrogen powered car, which is an emissions-free vehicle. We will have representatives from 3M, from Microsoft and from all of the multinational pharmaceutical companies that live off innovation. In the Bennelong Cup, the great nations of table tennis, China, Korea and Japan, come and compete in the Great Hall, but the real benefit of the Bennelong Cup is that 40 schools have a schools competition and play table terms with each other, which bridges the previous social and the cultural divides. Table tennis is bringing them all together.
As with the innovation fair, we had an innovation competition amongst the schools last week, and it was a joy to be there to see these brilliant young minds come and compete. There were trophies and coaches, just like a little tennis game—the coaches were the school teachers. They had very keen parents making sure that we spent an equal amount of time with each team, but the joy was in competing. It was sad that we actually had to call winners and losers, but the intelligence was recognised and applauded, as were the engagement between these young minds and their understanding of the value of STEM education and the value of innovation. The event was hosted by one of our innovative companies. The students had earlier made a trip to 3M, which is an extraordinary site in Bennelong. Virtually everything that we touch is held together by a 3M product. They do not just make Post-it notes. The winners among these young people will be competing here in the Great Hall next Monday—so you will all be there, won't you?—with an array of, I think, something like 30 companies from the innovation hub of Australia in the Bennelong area. As the Prime Minister would say, there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian, but, when you see these young kids and their intelligence, which just springs forth, you know that the most exciting time will be in the future. The young will inherit the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
MOTIONS
International Women's Day
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:01): I 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; and
(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.
It is a great pleasure to rise today in acknowledgement that International Women's Day was held during the parliamentary break, on 8 March this year. International Women's Day is, of course, an important day for all of us, wherever we might live across the globe, and a chance to take stock of where we are and where we have come from. It is a day to take note of the advances that have been made and pay tribute to those incredibly committed people across the globe who fought so hard to achieve them. It is also a day to acknowledge, however, that gender equality is something which still eludes us in too many areas of Australian life. It is a day to stand in solidarity with those who fight relentlessly to make sure that injustices are rectified and equality is achieved.
As noted in the motion, there is, however, much work to be done. There are more men named John than there are women running large Australian companies. In fact, captains of business are 40 per cent more likely to be named Peter or John than they are to be women. Women still earn significantly less than their male counterparts, with the gender pay gap sitting stubbornly now at around 17 per cent, where it has hovered for the last two decades. This means that, over the course of a lifetime, a woman is earning $400,000 less than a male doing the same job. As a result, she is more likely to finish her working life with nowhere near enough money to retire on. Women are more likely to live in poverty than men. One in three women will experience violence across her lifetime and, shamefully, one woman every week in this country dies at the hands of an intimate partner or former partner.
We need to banish complacency and double down on our efforts to bring about real change. We need to recognise that, without vigilance and commitment, we not only risk the hard-won gains but can actually go backwards. Regrettably, there is evidence that this is exactly what is happening under this government. Young women and girls looking at the front bench on the government side of this chamber and seeing only two female faces might start thinking this is not a place for them.
Until our parliament actually reflects the diversity of Australian society, it can never be truly representative, and, until women have a fair share of representatives voting for their interests, bad decisions will continue to be made—decisions that continue to disadvantaged women, like the looming cuts to penalty rates, which will disproportionately affect women as they are much more likely to be working part time or in the industries covered by the national awards affected; or the plan to cut paid parental leave, which is going to impact 70,000 women; or the reported plan to slash the National Affordable Housing Agreement, forcing women's refuges across the country to close their doors; or the massive 30 per cent cut to community legal centres, which are a vital lifeline to assist women escaping family violence.
What kind of government is willing to splash $50 billion on a tax cut for big business but levies vicious cuts against vital life-saving services for women suffering domestic violence? It is time to recognise that something needs to change and that this change is not going to happen by accident. Platitudes and rhetoric will not get us there; we need a plan for concrete action. Quite simply, it is now time to put gender back on the agenda. This is exactly what the Labor Party is doing. Recently we launched Setting the Agenda, a series of national conversations designed to develop concrete solutions to break down gender barriers. Labor has a strong legacy of advancing women's rights and Setting the Agenda is the next step. It will be driven by the shadow minister for women, Tanya Plibersek, and Labor's Status of Women Committee, which I chair. Setting the Agenda will be an integral part of shaping Labor's comprehensive blueprint for gender equality. We know what the problems are and we now want to talk to Australian women everywhere about the best solutions. We will be conducting a wide range of consultations with women working in front-line services in the regions and in the cities, and with businesses, unions, legal services and refuges. The committee will also be taking a listening tour on the road and will be visiting communities across the country to talk to women from all walks of life. I encourage all Australians who care about a fair and more equal society to join the conversation and visit Setting the Agenda at www.settingtheagenda.com.au. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there a seconder for the motion?
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:07): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:07): I have been very lucky my entire life to be surrounded by women who perfectly encapsulate the spirit of International Women's Day. With my mum and my sister, Lyn, and more recently over the past 27 years of marriage, I have been greatly blessed to have the unceasing love and support of my wife, Leonie, and our four strong, bold, independent young girls. It is fair to say that I have learnt a lot about the strength, tenacity and courage of women as we have faced challenges together as a family. Above all, I have learnt to treat all women as unique individuals who are working hard to build a better future for themselves.
Women outnumber men in my electorate of Fisher by as much as five per cent. In Sippy Downs, there are only 83 men for every 100 women. My community cannot underestimate the importance of women in Australia. We have a great many groups in Fisher who support, celebrate and encourage women. The Sunshine Coast Business Women's Network seeks to connect and inspire individuals through mentoring programs, bursaries and professional development. Our local chambers of commerce are full of successful female business leaders like Ursula Starkovsky, President of the Glasshouse Country Chamber of Commerce; Leanne Layfield, the executive officer at Caloundra Chamber of Commerce; and Sandy Zubrinich, the chair of the Sunshine Coast Business Council. We have wonderful branches of the Queensland Country Women's Association throughout Fisher at Caloundra, Palmwoods, Maleny, Beerwah and Peachester, and Lioness Clubs at Caloundra and Mooloolaba, among many others. Last month, one of our local young women, Sophie Jennings, achieved her first solo flight in a light aircraft at the Sunshine Coast Aero Club. This was an extraordinary result, an extraordinary milestone, having only recently turned 16 years of age. I congratulate Sophie on this outstanding achievement and wish her well in her future aviation career.
This is only a tiny sample of the many successful women in my local community and only a snapshot of the activities and groups which support them. They show how women themselves and the communities in which they live are taking action to create and exploit their opportunities and build the best lives for themselves and their families. I could take all of the time allotted to this debate listing these local initiatives in Fisher, but I must address the substance of the motion.
It is certainly true that more needs to be done in terms of achieving gender equality in Australia, but under this coalition government we have seen decisive action and excellent results. I will briefly focus on employment outcomes. The most recent figures suggest that 5.6 million Australian women are participating in the workforce. That is a record high, but the Turnbull government is not stopping there. The Minister for Women recently announced the expansion of our existing successful collaboration with UnitingCare Australia in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. We have committed $10 million to the new Launch into Work program. This program will create new partnerships with other businesses and not-for-profits to deliver pre-employment training for women who want to find work.
Again, the latest data suggests that the gender pay gap has recently narrowed. The most important thing that the government can do to narrow it further is to improve access to quality child care and ensure that women are not held back from pursuing their careers. The Turnbull government's increased investment in child care will benefit a million families and ensure that households earning $65,000 or less will have 85 per cent of their costs refunded. For families earning up to $185,000, the government will abolish the $7,500 cap and instead introduce an hourly rate cap to help keep down fee increases.
The Turnbull government is taking action on employment outcomes for women, as well as health outcomes for young girls, on family violence issues and on a host of other important issues which I am sure that my colleagues will explore in this debate. This House should celebrate International Women's Day and it should celebrate the government's delivery of policies that support Australian women.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:11): I would like to begin by commending the member for Newcastle for putting forward this motion. It is a very important motion. We still have to have a conversation about the situation facing Australian women, women in the region and women throughout the world. Yes, there have been some achievements made but there is still a lot more work that needs to be done. So I commend the member for putting this motion forward. I also commend my Labor sisters for engaging in this conversation, in this Listening Tour that is setting the agenda. I commend the shadow minister for women for leading that initiative and look forward to meeting with my female Labor colleagues on setting the agenda and listening to Australian women on what their needs are for the future.
I love International Women's Day, because it gives me a chance to catch up with hundreds of women, to celebrate the achievements of our sisters and to reflect on the work that still needs to be done—and there is a lot of work that still needs to be done—to ensure that we have gender equality for women and girls in Australia and right throughout the world. This year's theme for International Women's Day was 'Be Bold for Change'. It was a message that encouraged women and girls to believe in themselves, to believe that they have the right to speak up—in a way, a responsibility to speak up—to agitate for change and to realise change. It was a message that encouraged them to be fearless, to be courageous, to be brave, to stare down the naysayers and the critics and to stare down those who prefer their women and their girls timid and acquiescent.
I attended a number of functions over the course of the week and hosted nine extraordinary Canberra women at the annual UN Women's Day Lunch, which always packs out the National Convention Centre. This year was no different, as women and girls from across Canberra heard about the challenges faced by our sisters in Pakistan and the Pacific. I also attended the annual Soroptimist International breakfast, where another packed house of women heard from Kate Taplin, from the Women's Legal Centre ACT. Kate discussed the Turnbull government's cuts to this community legal service, which will mean that her organisation, like organisations right throughout Australia, will lose one-third of their core funding in 12 weeks time. So outraged were the women in the room—because there were not many shrinking violets in that room—that they organised a spontaneous petition. This petition calls on the Turnbull government to immediately reverse the cuts to the Women's Legal Centre ACT—cuts that will have a significant impact on the services provided by the centre; services that include advice on legal problems such as divorce and separation, disputes over children, property settlement, domestic violence, child support, going to court, discrimination, unfair dismissal, employment rights and compensation for criminal injuries.
The centre is run by women for women who do not qualify for legal aid. The centre looks after some of the most vulnerable people in Canberra and provides one of our most fundamental human rights—that is, the access to justice for all regardless of means. I join with my soroptimist international sisters and other Canberra women in calling on the Turnbull government to reverse the cuts to the Women's Legal Centre ACT. If the Turnbull government can afford $50 billion in a tax cut to big business, it can afford $30 million to reverse these cuts. The member for Fisher was talking about commitments made in a range of areas. Well, I ask the Turnbull government to commit to reversing these cuts to women's legal services, community legal services. These are vulnerable women; these are women who cannot access legal aid. This is the only opportunity that they have to access their fundamental human right—that is, access to justice regardless of means.
Not a day goes by when I do not meet an extraordinary Canberra woman doing extraordinary things and making a difference to our community, our nation and our world—often in a very quiet way. I always thought their knowledge and experience needs to be shared to inspire and empower young women and girls. So I have bottled their wisdom and advice, and have released it in 'Can Do Women', which I launched on my Facebook page on International Women's Day. At least once a week, I will feature an extraordinary Canberra woman who will answer questions—questions I am frequently asked in mentoring sessions. So, Canberra, please have a look at Facebook, please have a look at Can Do Women and get behind and support fabulous Canberra women, fearless Canberra women.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (11:17): International Women's Day is not just the day we celebrate women that we read about on the front page of the newspaper; it is an opportunity to reflect on the many great women who make a difference across Australia. Representing the largest electorate in Australia, spanning from Kununurra in the north out to Southern Cross in the east, Durack is home to some truly amazing women who each play a key role in making Durack the place it is today. In Geraldton, Women Inspiring Better Business, otherwise known as WIBBs, is a powerful organisation where female businesswomen network in a warm and supportive environment. Established in May 2010, WIBBs has grown in leaps and bounds under the management of chair Barbara Thompson from the Regional Development Midwest Gascoyne. Barb really has a passion for empowering female entrepreneurs and businesswomen which is second to none, and is driven to see WIBBs reach its full potential. On Barb's watch, WIBBs now has 450 members and its attendance at monthly breakfasts has increased from some 20-odd people to now well and truly over 60, which is a fantastic achievement in such a short time frame. WIBBs provides female businesswomen in Geraldton and surrounding towns a forum to be educated and to be inspired by one another.
Not forgetting the Kimberley, businesswoman Kalyn Fletcher was last year recognised for her hard work in the business community. Kalyn runs one of Australia's best distilleries, Hoochery Distillery, renowned internationally for its high-quality standard spirits. Their rum in particular is fabulous, Deputy Speaker Conroy, which I know you would be very pleased to hear. Last year, the Hoochery won a double gold medal for its 10-year old Spike's Reserve rum in San Francisco. And in 2015, the distillery's Overproof rum won a gold medal at the International Spirits Challenge in London and it took out silver last year in San Francisco. Kalyn's passion for the northwest went one step further last year with her being awarded RIRDC's, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation's, Rural Women's Award for Western Australia. Kalyn views the northwest as a region with potential for growth in agriculture and tourism. Her work and passion was recognised nationally, being awarded runner-up for the Rural Woman of the Year awards last year.
Few women have been a bigger role model for Indigenous Australians or a fiercer advocate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice than June Oscar AO. Hailing from the rural town of Fitzroy Crossing, in the heart of the Kimberley, in 2007 June successfully campaigned to reduce full-strength alcohol sales in the Fitzroy region. June held several influential positions in the Indigenous community, including Deputy Director of the Kimberley Land Council and Chair of the Kimberley Language Resource Centre, before she was appointed as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner in February.
Elsia Archer, who is the President of the Shire of Derby/West Kimberley, is another passionate, formidable female Kimberley leader, and it would be remiss of me not to mention her here today, as she would never forgive me.
The Pilbara is also home to many important, influential women. Lynne Craigie is a name synonymous with the Pilbara and Western Australia, having forged a successful career across WA. A qualified psychologist, Lynne ran her own practice 'south of the bush' for many years before moving to the Pilbara in 1997, where she has remained ever since, after she secured the role of psychologist for BHP. Lynne was elected as a councillor of the Shire of East Pilbara in 2003, before becoming the shire president in 2005, a position she still holds today. In mid-2015 Lynne became the first female to be appointed the President of the WA Local Government Association.
In Port Hedland there are few names more well-known than that of Jan Ford. Jan is one of the most passionate people about Hedland, and the Pilbara more generally, that you could ever meet, and she has been involved with just about every single major organisation in the town at one stage or another. She started her own business, Jan Ford Real Estate, an iconic Port Hedland brand, in the year 2000, and she won the Commonwealth Bank's business owner award at the Telstra Business Women's Awards in 2010.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see Durack is home to some amazing women, but there are many more: the women in the Wheatbelt who are helping to run the family farm; the women working in the Mid West in various fishery businesses; the women running thousands of small businesses throughout my electorate; and the women who choose to stay at home, running the home and caring for their family. I salute all of those women, who all play an important role in making Durack the fabulous place it is to live.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (11:22): Over the course of the last two weeks, it has been my great privilege to attend many International Women's Day events across my electorate and beyond, including at the Independent Education Union, where I met with educators from all over New South Wales; the New South Wales Labor Women's Network, with Tanya Plibersek; and my own Women of Lindsay Awards breakfast, where eight outstanding woman and one young woman were recognised for their contributions to our community. These women were recognised for being bold in their chosen fields. These women are an asset to our community and beyond for their work in supporting our local area and, particularly, the women in it.
I would like to place on the public record their achievements and my sincere gratitude on behalf of all the people in the Lindsay electorate. Laura Watson was awarded the Lindsay Woman of the Year for her establishment of a women's support network in our community. She followed this up by advocating in her workplace for an event that supported all the women she works with. She is a mum and a White Ribbon Ambassador and she volunteers her time to ensure other women in our community are supported and have a resource and that young women have role models to look to.
Angela Hadchiti received the Lindsay Community Service Award for her awareness-raising for all women who are experiencing and are affected by domestic violence, and in particular her advocacy for ending the woeful cross-examination laws.
Brooke Jones was our Young Woman of the Year. It was felt important to recognise young women in the community doing exceptional things. Brooke is 11 years old and, since she was just seven, she has been busy raising money for the cancer centre. In that time she has collected over $40,000 for people receiving treatment.
Jan Hartley was our Senior Woman of the Year. She is the founding member of Zonta, and they host a number of projects, including days for girls and the annual White Ribbon walk around the Nepean area.
Peggy Wilcox was Small Business Woman of the Year. She was bold for change, put a lot on the line and established her own small business in our community: Mooney Financial Services and Mooney Real Estate.
Our Educators of the Year awards went to four women: Tracy Currie, Venetia Lovett, Katherine Hadley and Shannon Matthews.
And I give a shout-out to the formidable Gina Field, who picked up the New South Wales Business Woman of the Year gong. Even without reliable internet, thanks to this government's botched rollout of the NBN, Gina is running a successful small business in our community, in a male dominated industry.
I also attended the Penrith women's lunch hosted by Penrith Women's Health Centre and Penrith City Council, where I met more women who are being bold for change—a shout-out to the organisers for another successful, well-attended event, with over 200 local women coming.
I visited the Jordan Springs and surrounds women's community group and Glenmore Park High School's young women's group, which comprises young women from years 7 to 12 supporting each other and building up one another for a more gender-inclusive world. A shout out to these young women and their very supportive principal, Lisette Gorick, for nurturing such a wonderful initiative. I hope more high schools in my area—in fact, nationally—get onboard with this idea.
Each of these events was a celebration of being a woman, the positive impact women have on society and the role women play. It is also a demonstration of the community's expectation of how women are viewed and represented. Each of these events was an opportunity to reflect on where the women's movement has been over the last 100 years, where it has to go and how we are going to get there.
I am proud of where the Labor Party has been, in this space, and the reforms and policies Labor has been able to support over the years. Labor's rich legacy in the women's space includes the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act; the National Women's Alliance, so women have a voice in government; the Workforce Gender Equality Agency, to help close the gender pay gap; 1800RESPECT, which we set up; the National Women's Health Policy 2010; and we raised the child-care rebate to 50 per cent.
The thing that makes me most proud is our party's commitment to the affirmative action rule, which is not just a rule. It is a mission and our plan. It is a plan to work towards closing the gender inequality gaps in Australia at the highest level: our parliament. It is why we have more females on our backbench than the government has in its entire caucus, which simply is not good enough. It is unacceptable that half of Australia's population is not represented in the ironically named House of Representatives. The government has a shameful record, in this space, and sees the women's policy area as a place for cuts, not empowerment through good policymaking.
We have a lot more to do, on both sides, in this space, including fighting for fairer pensions; decent superannuation; addressing the fastest growing group of homeless people, older women; fighting against the penalty rate cuts, because we know this will affect more women's take-home pay than it does men and it pushes women further behind; and the national shame that is our shocking domestic-violence statistics and the murder of one woman a week at the hands of her partner or former partner.
I congratulate all those workplaces, schools, bosses and businesses who took time out to recognise International Women's Day and those who are being bold for change. I hope you have a plan of sustained action for advocacy and approach each and every single day—not just International Women's Day—in building up other women and implementing plans in your own circles of influence to end gender inequality.
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (11:27): In relation to International Women's Day, it is extraordinary that those on the other side of the House convey that the government does not stand up or support women, when one of their own—a very close ally of the Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition—Bill Shorten, says that laws which people do not like can be broken. I rise to say it is extraordinary.
Last week the new leader and secretary of the ACTU, Sally McManus, made the following statement on 7.30, albeit she clumsily tried to clarify it later:
"I believe in the rule of law, when the law is fair and the law is right," she said.
"But when it's unjust, I don't think there's a problem with breaking it."
Similarly, Keysar Trad, the president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, conceded in a TV interview, 'It's okay for a man to use violence against a woman if he's tried counselling first.' Particularly given the context of his high office in the Islamic community, it is disturbing that he also, clearly, has no regard for Australian law. He was, effectively, saying that domestic violence against a woman is okay—albeit a crime—and the law against it can be broken.
The Leader of the Opposition tried to distance himself from the comments of Sally McManus and delink his reported lifetime link and enduring bond with her and the unions, but they trained together to be union organisers. Just as being bonded friends with union officials, breaking laws is not a foreign concept to the CFMEU, their predecessors, the BLF, whose business model was violence and thuggery, and their Labor Party colleagues.
I, personally, have been a victim of assault by trade union officials. They have been charged with over 100 assaults, many of them of a sexual and harassment nature, and many of them against women. This is one of the fundamental reasons the Turnbull government worked hard and, in fact, did restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission—to stamp out the lawlessness and violence of union officials in the CFMEU and the like.
McManus said it is silly for women to wear dresses and heels, yet she also said that she was an advocate for women being able to wear burqas. The hypocrisy and simplistic code of people such as McManus and those on the other side is typical of these attitudes, that 'Women in Australia can wear heels and dresses.' What they need to understand is that women in Australia can wear heels and dresses because they want to. Contrarily, although some Australian women wear the burqa because they want to, reportedly some wear it because they fear they have to under the auspices of elements of sharia law—elements of which have sadly crawled in behind the closed doors of Australian homes, such as forcing women to cover up, forcing them to marry or, if not, they face the reality of violence or, tragically, honour killings or the like.
The Turnbull government's principles of liberalism are about freedom and equal opportunity, regardless of gender. These are principles which are underpinned by all people abiding by the Australian rule of law. Sally McManus now has a huge share of voice as the Secretary of the ACTU, together with Bill Shorten, a long-time friend and puppet of the unions and union officials. Keysar Trad similarly has a significant share of voice as a leader of the Muslim community. Both have effectively said that they believe Australian laws can be broken if they consider them unfair or unjust. The Australian rule of law is paramount. Endorsing breaking laws by one group, be it the CFMEU or leaders who have a high share of voice, encourages lawlessness by others. This runs the risk of breaking the very fabric of our society and all the progress and laws embraced and implemented by our government to support women.
Under the leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash, the Turnbull government has made many laws and will always support laws which ensure equality and respect for women—laws to stop the sources of domestic violence, violence and assault against women, and industrial and employment laws to protect Australian women and ensure equal opportunity. Australian laws, the fundamental core of our democracy, are laws which no man or woman is above, including Sally McManus and the unions.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (11:31): That was the most bizarre International Women's Day speech I have ever heard in my entire life. Somehow we started with International Women's Day and then we ended up in burqas. I wonder how the whole idea of cuddling up to One Nation went for the Liberal Party in Western Australia. I think it is pretty clear it did not work out particularly well, so I am a bit surprised and a bit bemused, really, that the Liberal Party are coming in here and using an International Women's Day motion to bash up Sally McManus and to have a go at women who wear burqas. It is utterly ridiculous and bizarre. I have never heard anything quite like it.
But I suppose it is pretty obvious why the Liberal Party cannot come in here and talk about their own achievements when it comes to women, because there are virtually no women in parliament in the Liberal Party. If you have a look at the Labor Party caucus, we have a good healthy 45 per cent representation of women. The poor old Libs are languishing around the 20 per cent mark, just like they have been for the past 20 years. They have had no movement.
Mr Conroy: They are going backwards.
Ms BUTLER: They are going backwards, as the member for Shortland quite rightly says. They have had no progress in 20 years. And do you know what their answer to that is? Keep doing the same thing and see if it gets better. Just cross your fingers and see if that helps you get more women into parliament! Is that the idea that the Liberal Party has? They just say: 'No, it's all right—it's merit. There's a pipeline. Eventually some women of merit will come through. Why are there no women of merit? Where are the women of merit?' It is as though they have no idea of how to improve representation of women within the Liberal Party. I hope they sort that out pretty soon. This is not to mention the poor old Nats, where women are down at under 15 per cent in parliamentary representation. So the Libs have 20 per cent and the Nats 15 per cent.
On the other hand, look at what we in Labor have done over the past 20 years to improve female representation in our own caucus. And we are still going, because Bill Shorten is committed to 50 per cent female representation. I am very proud to be in a party that do not just care about this issue but take real action to deliver on it. We are not just crossing our fingers and hoping. We are actually setting in place rules and a culture that delivers women into parliament.
Look at all the amazing women we have in the chamber with us. We have the member for Lindsay, the member for Herbert and the member for Newcastle—and, I might say, our very pro-feminist friend the member for Shortland, who is enjoying that description very much. There is also your good self, of course, Deputy Speaker Bird. But I reckon there are probably more women in here than you would ever see getting together in the Liberal Party. There just are not enough of them to really have a critical mass. So I really encourage the Liberal Party to get its act together and to get more women into parliament.
An International Women's Day motion is a really good opportunity to talk about female representation in parliament. In fact this is a really good use of an International Women's Day motion compared to, say, having a go at Sally McManus and complaining about the burqa, which is a very odd use of an International Women's Day motion.
I might say that it is lovely to be up here speaking about a motion that really is about a day that is derived from international socialism and a garment workers' strike in the early 1900s. Those are the roots of International Woman's Day, and International Women's Day is deliberately internationalist in its focus. It is not just what is happening for women here at home but for women around the world because the whole purpose of International Women's Day is to recognise that, when women anywhere are oppressed, women everywhere are oppressed.
It is also an opportunity to reflect on our own progress in relation to some very, very acute issues facing women in Australia, and the motion that the member for Newcastle has moved deals with a number of those issues, including violence against women, including cuts to paid parental leave, including cuts to services like women's refuges and community legal centres.
I want to touch on family violence of course, because it is such an important and pressing issue for our community. It is really regrettable that this government, this Liberal government, cut $88 million capital expenditure component from the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, because the leading driver of homelessness in this country is family and domestic violence. It is also greatly unfortunate that they are cutting funding for community legal centres by 30 per cent because, again, the major driver of business for community legal centres is family and domestic violence.
I am also greatly concerned that this government has so far failed to commit to reforming cross-examination in family law. In 2014, the Productivity Commission recommended a change to the rules so that judges could prevent perpetrators of family violence from personally cross-examining victims in family law proceedings. It is something that Labor has committed to both at the 2016 federal election and since the federal election. Bill Shorten has been very strong on this, but yet the Attorney-General has failed to agree to this crucial reform. This is of grave concern as is what is happening with the funding and the support for 1800RESPECT, the national trauma counselling hotline, and we are all very concerned about that. There are a range of other issues: workplace issues; and penalty rate cuts, which disproportionately affect women. This government needs to take a good hard look at itself when it comes to what it is doing for women in this country.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (11:36): International Women's Day is celebrated around the world on 8 March every year. From business and government to education, the arts and sport, Australian women are achieving in every field of endeavour. They are not only changing the face of our nation today for the better; they are inspiring and mentoring the next generation of strong, influential young women to be positive change makers in our community. This day is an opportunity to recognise the many accomplishments and important contributions women make in our society and the strides that have been made in recent years while acknowledging there is still more work to do.
This International Women's Day, I was delighted to join Western Sydney Women at their awards night at the Hills Shire Council. The event recognised more than 16 women from the Hills District for their incredible work across a whole range of categories from health, business, philanthropy to community services. I was privileged to be at the launch of Western Sydney Women, which was founded last year by two absolutely inspirational women: Amanda Rose, a marketing and media professional; and Maria Kovacic, who runs her own financial services business. Amanda and Maria recognised the need to create an organisation to bring together women from across Western Sydney to advocate for them, empower them and encourage them to achieve in all facets of life. They have quickly built an impressive organisation which holds great events and helps bring together the diversity of women in Western Sydney.
It was also my great pleasure at International Women's Day to introduce Yvonne Keane, the Mayor of the Hills Shire Council—someone who encapsulates the immense ability of women right across Western Sydney and across the country. Yvonne is an award-winning TV producer and former presenter. She is the founder of Hear the Children, an early intervention centre, which provides children with access to life-changing auditory-verbal therapy, giving them the opportunity to develop clear and natural speech.
Yvonne also serves on the board of Endeavour Foundation, is an elected director of Local Government NSW, a member of the NSW Council for Women's Economic Opportunity. Through her work, Yvonne has shown the importance of women mentoring other women. She is an inspiration to thousands of women across the hills and greater Western Sydney.
I want to speak a little bit about government policy to support women. Australia has made a great deal of progress in ensuring men and women are treated equally, and women are recognised for their leadership skills and the contributions they make. On average, women still earn less than men, but the gap in average weekly earnings between men and women has narrowed to 16 per cent—that is a decrease of 1.1 per cent from a year ago and down 2.5 per cent in the last two years. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency provides focus on the pay gap through reporting, auditing and awareness campaigns.
The Turnbull government has strengthened the BoardLinks program by setting a new target of 50 per cent representation of men and women on government boards. Across the Australian Public Service, the Turnbull government has implemented the Gender Equality Strategy that requires every new agency to set targets for gender equality in leadership positions. And we have dedicated over a million dollars to the Australian Institute of Company Directors to deliver board diversity scholarships.
While these are certainly improvements, the government also recognises that we have more to do. Since coming into office in 2013, tackling domestic violence has been at the forefront of the coalition's agenda. Media reports sadly indicate that nine women have been killed in Australia this year as a result of domestic violence. While the homicide data shows that the rate of deaths from domestic violence has been falling, reports of domestic violence are rising.
In September 2015, Prime Minister Turnbull announced the Women's Safety Package—a $100 million program focused on combating domestic violence against women. Additionally, the government has launched a $30 million national campaign in partnership with the states and territories to change attitudes towards violence against women that has been viewed more than 37.6 million times online. In October 2016, the federal government co-hosted the COAG National Summit on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children. At the summit, the third action plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022 was launched and the Turnbull government committed an extra $100 million.
There is a great deal of progress being made to combat violence against women in my electorate of Berowra. Women's Community Shelters operates the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter and The Sanctuary—The Hills Women's Shelter. These shelters are run locally and help provide help and support to women in my electorate who need it most. Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Women's Shelter, led by president Sallianne McClelland and vice-president Dick Babb, provide crisis accommodation to homeless women in need of support services. The Sanctuary, chaired by Yvonne Keane, is a crisis shelter in Castle Hill for women and their children who are fleeing domestic violence. Both of these shelters have been filled to capacity since opening, and I am proud to support both of them.
These shelters come under the umbrella of Women's Community Shelters, led by their extraordinary CEO, Annabelle Daniel. I met with Annabelle and board member Kris Neill recently to hear about their plans to further expand their shelters into other suburban areas and provide a different experience for women and children from that which many of us think a shelter would be. I am inspired by the women of Berowra who are doing such incredible work in our community, and I am proud to be part of a government that is dedicated to making further advances in women's policy across Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Energy
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (11:42): I 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.
We are all aware of the negative campaigns attempting to block investment of new coalmines in Australia. Today, I would like to address the impact this is having on energy security and the creation of employment opportunities, especially for my electorate of Capricornia. We need to wake up instead of get up.
Australia is leading the way internationally in clean coal technology. Black coal from Queensland is the most energy efficient in the world in terms of kinetic output per unit of coal burned. By supplying clean coal to the world, we are securing our own future while providing basic needs to the developing world with a cleaner outcome.
The Greens and lobby groups think that stopping coalmine development in Australia will resolve global environmental issues. This is like thinking you can build a house with zippy ties and sticky tape. Australia and, indeed, the world will eventually transition to new forms of energy supply. To suggest this is going to happen overnight is not only irrational but also irresponsible. The world will continue to source coal whether or not the 30 proposed coal projects in Capricornia go ahead or not. It is just that it will not be sourced from Australia. It is going to cost us jobs and it is going to cost us the environment.
This is not just about Adani, Alpha, Waratah or Hancock getting approvals. This is about ensuring Australia's own energy security in a world of growing demand. Our domestic energy supply and pricing can be supported by high-efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power generation technology. Australia can and should be leading the way in developing HELE coal-fired power plants to produce more electricity with less coal at less cost.
Around the world, over 1,200 plants are under construction—achieving over 45 per cent efficiencies. Australia has none planned. How can we, when new investment in coal is constantly delayed? We must ensure Australia's power supplies are affordable for the everyday household, and we absolutely need to ensure businesses can remain competitive on a global scale. Imagine if we turned off the coal tap tomorrow. That is 230,000 jobs gone in mining. Electricity prices soar, eliminating another 16 per cent of jobs from the construction and manufacturing sectors. With a fifth of the country out of work, the retail sector crumbles. It may sound like an exaggerated, dystopian fantasy, but this is a real outcome if we allow this country to be held hostage by the Greens and the union-backed lobby groups who support them.
On a recent trip to the Pioneer Valley in my electorate of Capricornia, a sugarcane grower told me that electricity required to pump water was costing $9 per tonne. They are considering switching to diesel. In Rockhampton, for Dobinsons Spring & Suspension, power costs have tripled in 10 years. Solar installation has helped, but it is no use for early morning furnace operations. They too are considering diesel. If companies fail, jobs for working families go with them.
I know the Greens think that the sun shines out of a different place, but the reality for business is that solar energy has to come from the sky and battery storage. The former is not reliable and the latter is currently too expensive. Businesses will look for alternatives that allow them to stay in business, and that alternative is much dirtier than clean coal; it is diesel. Anyone who has flown into Jakarta, Beijing or Bombay knows the familiar smell of diesel in the stratosphere. Is that really what Australia wants? We have to allow resource and mineral projects in Central Queensland to go ahead, and we have to develop HELE coal-fired power stations. We need to trust that the very investors in coal today will be the innovators of renewable energy tomorrow. We need to understand that Australia's coal is amongst the cleanest in the world. We will not save the environment by stopping coalmines and coal-fired power. In fact, it is quite likely to be the opposite.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Ted O'Brien: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:46): Coal will play a role in energy generation in Australia. But, if we are going to be honest and admit the facts, in terms of electricity generation, the role of coal will be a diminishing one. The reason for that is that coal-fired power is dirty. It is polluting and it generates carbon emissions, and over time we need to reduce those carbon emissions if we going to do justice to our kids and plan for the onslaught of climate change and for reductions in emissions. The role of government is to plan for that transition—to plan, for 20 to 30 years time, more renewables and less coal-fired power. That transition is government's role, and the plan is to make that transition as smooth as possible, particularly to reduce the adverse impact on jobs, on investment and on communities.
The one thing we can say about the Turnbull government is that they are incompetently hopeless at planning for this transition away from dirty, coal-fired power to renewables in the future. Why? Quite simply, they do not know what they want to do. One minute, the Prime Minister is for renewable energy, but the next minute, Tony Abbott makes a speech and changes his mind, and Australians are paying the price. Australians are paying the price for this government's competence and lack of a plan, through higher electricity prices. The one thing we can say with certainty is that, since the election of the Abbott-Turnbull government, electricity prices for Australian consumers are much higher. They are much higher, because the government do not have a plan for the future.
In the 1980s, when New South Wales faced blackouts, the Wran government acted and commissioned additional coal-fired power stations in Bayswater and Liddell. When they were built, the blackouts stopped. They brought on extra supply and they planned for the future. A lot of people have said: 'Why can't the government do that again? Why can't they stop these blackouts by providing more supply?' There is a reason they cannot, and that is that Liberal governments privatised the systems. They sold all of those public assets off to the private sector. In the three states where they did it, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, guess what? There have been blackouts and there have been higher electricity prices.
The private sector simply is not investing. I can recall, in 2007, when we went through this debate in New South Wales about electricity privatisation, and the advocates at the time saying: 'Don't worry. Don't worry. If we privatise the generators in New South Wales, the private sector will always invest. They will always bring on new capacity.' Well, guess what? We have privatised the system and they are not investing. They are not bringing on new capacity. And why would you? You would have to be nuts to invest in a new coal-fired power station in this day and age, because it is becoming an outdated technology. Where you would be investing is in renewables. If you have got any sense, you will invest in renewables, because that is where the future lies. But they are not doing that in Australia, because this government has no plan for that transition. This government has no plan for that transition, and it is affecting electricity prices. It is perfectly summed up by the Australian Energy Council's submission to the Finkel review, where they said:
… the lack of national policy certainty is now the single biggest driver of higher electricity prices.
That is the view of the people that work in the industry.
By removing a price on carbon, by reducing the RET and by ignoring the advice on the establishment of an emissions intensity scheme, the government has completely destroyed any plan for certainty of investment in renewable energy in Australia. When you get a lack of investment, you get a constraint on supply. With increasing demand, which we have seen in Australia over recent years because of the warming of the climate, you get higher prices. Constraint on supply, increasing demand, higher prices—it is simple economics. That is all because of a lack of investment to bring on that additional supply. That is ensuring that jobs are lost. That is ensuring that emissions are increasing in Australia. In Australia, over the last year or so, emissions have increased by 2.2 per cent, and investment in renewable energy has fallen. In 2014, investment in large-scale wind, solar and other clean energy sources fell, by an astounding 88 per cent, to $240 million—the lowest since 2002. It is because of this government's lack of plan and its lack of commitment to a transition to renewable energy that we are all paying the cost in higher electricity prices.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (11:52): I really enjoyed that last speaker. The religious zealotry comes out, yet again, from the Labor Party whenever this topic is discussed. There were a few accusations made: one being that the government continues to change its mind, because it supports one form of energy and then another form of energy. Now, as the Prime Minister made very clear at the beginning of this year and since: this government takes an agnostic approach when it comes to energy. That means that there are times when we will support renewables, there are times when we will absolutely support wind, solar and hydro, and there are times when we will also support gas and coal.
At the end of the day, our policy objectives are crystal clear. We need to ensure that we have energy security in this country. That means that we need secure, reliable and affordable energy. The objective is clear. Our disposition, being agnostic, is clear. It differentiates us from those opposite, because our approach is a pragmatic one. It is not one based on zealotry. It is not one that says the days of coal are dead and that it is all about renewables. It is one that says that we need to ensure we have energy security and we need to ensure that we deliver against our commitments under the Paris Agreement. In order to achieve those end objectives, we are happy to accept a myriad of energy sources—coal, of course, being key to it.
What we have, and the last speaker from the opposition made it clear, is a complete ignorance of the way the real market economy works. They love to speak big about the importance of not having uncertainty in this energy marketplace; however, at that very time you have Labor state governments with unrealistic renewable energy targets which are fundamentally flawed and are a disadvantage and a disincentive for capital to flow into Australia—and, indeed, domestic companies across Australia—because of state Labor governments.
We all know the disaster, the catastrophe, that has taken place in South Australia in recent months with the blackouts. In my state—I am a proud Queenslander—the Labor government has a 50 per cent renewable energy target, which is absolutely ludicrous. Anybody who has worked in business—and admittedly, in fairness to the opposition, very rarely do they have any members in this place with business experience—or who has done any shape of economics—and again, in fairness to them, they have very few with such a background—understands the importance of leveraging your strength; leveraging your core capability. One of our strengths as a country is our resources. One of the things that has led to our economy outcompeting other economies over the years has been the fact that we leverage our strengths, we leverage our resources—and that includes coal.
Members opposite might be interested to know, because the last speaker started to talk about the importance of jobs and then said that coal was not important, that in 2014 nearly 55,000 direct jobs and 145,000 indirect jobs were created by the coal industry—let alone the role played by this industry in keeping other companies and other industries alive, allowing their economies to move forward. On top of that, what we have is an industry that also has the ability to lift people out of poverty in some emerging markets. Literally hundreds of millions of people in the world today do not have electricity, but Australian coal can solve that problem. It is for these reasons that I reject the ludicrous claims of religious zealotry from the opposition and am very happy to support this motion.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (11:57): The previous speaker shows that he has never come near a fact in his life, because you do not even have to talk about climate change to understand the economics that are confronting the power sector at the moment. I come from a proud coalmining region. Coalmining in Australia started in the Hunter Valley in 1801. We have 17,000 coalminers still in the Hunter Valley. My neighbour is a coalminer; I can see the largest coal-fired power station in the country from my front window. I am proud of our coalmining heritage, and it has a future. But those opposite are showing wilful economic ignorance when they talk about what the next generation of power production in this country is.
The truth is that our power stations are getting old very rapidly. The average age of the power fleet in New South Wales is 35 years and in Victoria it is 41 years. Thirty-three per cent of the power produced in this country comes from the Hunter Valley, and the four power stations are due to finish up in 2022, 2028, 2033 and 2035. We need alternatives very shortly. Leaving aside the cost of climate, the next coal-fired power station to be built in this country can only be built with a massive government subsidy, because coal-fired power is massively uneconomical. The levelised cost of energy production of the power station options in this country currently stands at a new black coal-fired power station being somewhere between $130 and $160 a megawatt hour—as said by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, not some mad hippie-greenie outfit. For wind it is $65—they are getting $65 a megawatt hour for wind. Large-scale PV is around $100—so it is already cheaper than coal. And rooftop photovoltaics with battery storage, providing true baseline power through solar, is only slightly above $100 an hour, according to RepuTex, and Bloomberg thinks it will be somewhere between $80 and $120 a megawatt hour by 2030. These are economic forecasters' figures—not greenies' figures. So let me repeat that: a new coal-fired power station in this country is more expensive than base load renewable and more expensive than base load gas.
The coalition do not have a clue. The coalition are economically illiterate. They are fossils. They are dinosaurs. And they are doing a great disservice to the workforce. The worst thing you can do is lie to workers, but this mob are happy to lie to workers. They are happy to go to coalminers and people who work in coal-fired power stations and say, 'Don't worry, Sunshine; you can keep doing exactly the same job for the next 50 years.' It is a great disservice to those workers and it is a great disservice to the communities like mine that rely on those jobs. It is a grubby, low act that Australians do not deserve.
We owe workers and communities like mine honesty and a plan for the future. We can have and we do need new base load power in this country, and it will be a combination of gas and—once we get through the current crisis, which this government has done nothing about but talk for the last four years—renewable energy, either base load renewable energy through concentrated solar-thermal or solar PV and storage and wind in a more intermittent variety. That combination is the future of power production in this country. Clean coal is a myth. Clean coal is a lie. The cleanest coal-fired power station in our region produces 700 kilos of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour—closed-cycle gas, 370 kilos; and renewables, obviously zero. There is no such thing as clean coal, and lying to workers and saying that this is the future for Australia is incredibly disrespectful to them and ignores the real challenges of this economy.
I am happy to debate this motion. There is only one side of politics that is operating in an air of reality in this, and that is Labor. The coalition, through ideological reasons, because they do not accept the science of climate change, or pure economic illiteracy, led by the Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, who is a disgrace—and it is a joke that this country has an economic illiterate as the Deputy Prime Minister—are leading us down the wrong path. I am proud of Labor's climate change policies and I am proud of our energy prices. I am also proud to come from a coal region that has a bright future. But the first thing we owe communities like mine is honesty, and the coalition are just lying through their teeth.
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (12:02): Quite simply, the energy debate needs to be put into three very stark and very easy-to-understand categories. Firstly, as the government of the nation we need to be able to provide for our people reliable access to energy, so that the lights do not go off and so that industry can continue to do what it does for this country whenever it needs to. If that is three in the morning or four in the afternoon on a stinking hot day, we need to be able to keep the lights on and we need to be able to keep power coming through our homes, our hospitals and our industry. The second thing we need to do is to make this energy as affordable as we possibly can. We all know that, through a whole range of different reasons, the price of energy is going through the roof. The third thing we need to do is to make sure that we reach our Paris Agreement commitments. We need to be able to reduce our emissions so that we treat the environment in the same way that we treat our roadsides and our riversides. In the same way that we clean up our waterways, we also need to clean up our atmosphere. This three-pronged approach from the coalition shows that it is the only political force in this country that has a well-balanced view on this.
Right now, in 2017, to be able to provide that three-tiered approach of reliable, affordable and low-intensity-emission energy, we need to have a mix. And the mix at the moment—unfortunately for those opposite—involves a percentage of coal. Right now in Victoria over 22 per cent of our energy is being supplied by Hazelwood. You can go online and see how all eight generators at Hazelwood are firing away at near full capacity. Yet in just a couple of weeks the overseas owners, due to the Labor Party and the state government putting so much pressure on them, are simply going to pack it up and leave. What is going to happen to Victorian prices for electricity when that happens? They are going to increase anywhere from five to 15 per cent, adding another $80-odd to the family power bill. And that is not to mention what it is going to do to industry. Not only is it going to jack-up the prices; it is going to diminish the reliability of energy in this country, and industry, certainly in Victoria, has been based on cheap energy. Industry got a foothold and then retained its competitiveness on the back of cheap energy. Compared to other trading nations, we have always had high wages. However, when it comes to trade and manufacturing of the same commodities, we have always been able to argue that we have lower energy costs—and also high quality produce, specifically when it comes to food production in my electorate of Murray.
At the moment, Australia is a huge exporter of coal, the second biggest exporter of coal in the world. That is mainly black coal, but if technology continues to improve and we can work out how to dry the brown coal reserves of Gippsland, we will be sitting on a real boon for both Victoria and Australia. At the moment we are not able to do that, but there are many people working day in, day out to reach that level of balance.
As I said earlier, the latest data has shown that the coalition are well on track to meet our commitment under the Paris Agreement, which is a reduction to 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. We are doing what we can in that space, and we need to do whatever we can in relation to reliability and cost.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:07): This motion—and the speakers from the government—shows just how desperate those opposite are. The campaign of misinformation they are trying to run is because the big promise they made voters back in 2013 has failed. We all remember what this government said when they were in opposition: 'We'll scrap the price on carbon and your power bills will go down.' Well, they were wrong. Since they have been in government we have seen power prices go up. They told every single household and every single business in Australia a big, fat furphy when they said that scrapping the price on carbon—what they call the 'carbon tax'—would mean power prices would go down.
What we are seeing now from this government is nothing but desperation to try and cover up the dirty, big, fat furphy they told right before the 2013 campaign. The policy of state Labor governments and the Labor opposition is 50-50 renewable energy. Guess what? That also means 50 per cent base load, a mix of coal and gas—a fact that this government and the Liberal-National MPs in the chamber choose to ignore. We are talking about a mix. We are talking about transitioning to a cleaner and greener economy. We are talking about it in the way of a just transition. That is something this government do not understand.
The previous speaker talked about the shutting down of Hazelwood. Let's just talk about Hazelwood. It is an old asset that was sold by the Liberal former premier Jeff Kennett, and, as acknowledged, it is owned by overseas companies—not Victorians; overseas owners. It was always going to close, yet, rather than being proactive and supporting the workers, rather than being proactive and working with the state of Victoria, this government chose to pick a fight. Maybe that is because of the fact that they have not put enough money into transition. The state Labor government in Victoria have put almost $300 million into a fund to help that community transition so those workers can have jobs, yet this government have put very little money in of their own—in fact, only $3 million compared to the $300 million that the Labor government put in.
It does not stop there. The government has little care or regard for coalmining workers. We heard from previous speakers on this side that you must talk about the workers in coalmines, particularly the workers in Queensland. I have mentioned before in this place that we have one of the mining companies that the government is quick to defend. Anglo American have made direct employees redundant and replaced them with labour-hire workers, subcontractors. Thirty-one local workers are currently out of work, directly replaced with labour-hire workers. This is happening across the coalmining industry. We have companies very quick to cry poor and we have a government very quick to jump to their defence, but not to the defence of the people working in these industries.
Safety is becoming an issue in our mines because labour-hire workers feel scared and insecure about speaking up, because when you are a labour-hire worker you can be transferred off-site like that. They have no general protections and they have no protection from unfair dismissal, so coalminers are becoming increasingly unsafe in their environments for fear of speaking up about safety. Because of this growth in labour hire in our small towns, we are seeing the death of small towns like Middlemount. The Middlemount post office closed in 2013. There are now fears that the school will close because so many workers at the mine are now labour hire and therefore live in Rockhampton and are drive in, drive out workers. They say they cannot afford to uproot their families and bring them to Middlemount if their job will not exist tomorrow.
We also have the case of black lung—a growing crisis within our coalmining industry. More and more coalminers are being diagnosed with back lung every year. The coalmining union estimates that up to 1,000 coalminers could have black lung. These are the conditions that coalminers are working in, yet we have not heard a word from the government in speaking up for the workers in these mines. All we hear is them speaking up about company profits and coal. Sure, they make a casual link between coalmining and jobs, but they are not standing up here and defending the workers. They are not standing up here with a solution for the growing crisis with black lung disease, they are not standing up for our small towns, they are not standing up for safety and they are not standing up to ensure that workers in mines are directly employed and not facing labour hire. This government is not serious about clean energy and it is not serious about coalmining.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (12:12): We are here today to talk about coal. I want to reflect for a moment on the importance of coal to our society and our economy. Coal powered the Industrial Revolution. It took many societies from serfdom to the wonderful standard of living that many of us enjoy today, so I am a big supporter of coal. In 2013, we had a redistribution which brought the coalmining town of Collie into my electorate of O'Connor. O'Connor was already an electorate that represented mining interests in gold and nickel. Agriculture and tourism were the main industries, so I welcomed the addition of Collie to my electorate. They are good, hardworking people—Labor voters for the most part. I welcomed them into my electorate and I am determined to look after them. As the member for Bendigo said earlier, it is all about looking after the people who live in our small towns.
I also want to touch on the energy mix in Western Australia. At the moment, as we can see on the AEMO website, currently 13 per cent of Western Australia's power is generated by wind, 49 per cent is generated by coal, with most coming out of the town of Collie, and 37 per cent is generated by gas. When I looked the other afternoon, the amount of generation from wind was zero. There was no wind blowing, so the energy mix saw gas and coal having to step up to fill the baseload requirement. We need to bear this in mind. The previous speaker talked about baseload renewable energy. I am looking forward to seeing some facts around that baseload renewable energy. Anyway, we also heard about consultant reports and modelling that talked about renewable energy being cheaper than coal fired power or gas. That may well be the case when the wind is blowing, but at the end of the day you still have to have the baseload capacity ready to go when the wind drops off, and that is the fundamental issue.
As I said, we have heard about modelling and consultants reports and we have heard other experts talk about the various costs. As all of us in this place get lobbied by all sides and we see reports written with one point of view or another in mind, but let us look at a real-life example. South Australian Premier Mike Rann referred to South Australia as an experiment, or the canary in the coalmine. South Australia has pushed its renewable energy component up to a theoretical 41 per cent of the state's electricity supply. I do not think I need to remind everyone in this place of the disaster that has been. We saw massive power blackouts, costing, I think, business in South Australia around $110 million to $120 million. We have seen small businesses paying increases in their power bills of up to 75 per cent just in the last 12 months. We all remember the celebration of the South Australian government when the Port Augusta power plant was demolished. 'What a great day for the state,' the South Australian government said. But, since then, we have seen that Arrium, the steel producer, is looking at removing its business from South Australia, and other major businesses are looking to move on.
On the weekend before last in Western Australia, we had a new Labor government elected. I congratulate them and I hope they are a very good government. Let us look at what Western Australian Labor were talking about just a few weeks before the election. According to The Australian, the Labor energy spokesperson, Bill Johnston, told the National Environmental Law Association on 27 October, in answer to a question about whether WA should have its own renewable energy target:
The Labor Party's target is at least 50 per cent by 2030. We don't believe that that is going to push up prices because we believe it will be done on a competitive basis and, as I say, I think setting a target leads to policy action and I think there are a lot of policy actions that are required.
That is what Mr Johnston said, but, importantly, this is what the re-elected Labor member for Collie-Preston, Mick Murray, thinks. Once again, I quote The Australian and an article written by Andrew Burrell:
Labor abandoned plans to unveil a 50 per cent renewable energy target in Western Australia after Mick Murray—the party's veteran MP in the coalmining town of Collie—threatened to quit his marginal seat before next week's state election.
… … …
It is understood Mr Murray had heated discussions with Labor energy spokesman Bill Johnston and others in the party who … would have set a 50 per cent renewable energy target for WA …
I look forward to working with Mick Murray to oppose the federal Labor Party's 50 per cent target. (Time expired)
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (12:17): I thank the member for Capricornia for this excellent opportunity to express my concerns and, indeed, the concerns of my constituents regarding the Adani Carmichael coalmine and this government's irresponsible attack on renewables in pursuit of its love affair with coal. This government's fascination with jobs in the present economy does, of course, have its virtues, but, when it considers the public policy question around energy policy and coal, this government approaches the issues with the zealotry and single-mindedness of it being a religious war rather than it being a considered public policy debate trying to search for the best and most economic solutions for our country. As the contribution from the last speaker exemplifies, for the government this is a zero-sum game. This is good versus evil. This is coal versus evil imitators. This is not a government searching for an evidence based and sensible approach that would best advantage this country. In fact, it amazes me that every time a member of this government seeks to once again praise the future of coal—by bringing into this place, for instance, for a nationwide show-and-tell a lump of coal—they continue to float irresponsible and absurd claims about renewable energies. Every year when we are breaking records when it comes to extreme weather events in Australia and our Pacific neighbours are under immediate threat from rising sea levels—and we know things will continue to get worse until we do something decisive about it—from this government we see, at best, in its most glorious moments, mere inaction, and more often we see nothing less than absolute sabotage, partisan attacks on renewable energy and partisan attacks on measures that are aimed to reduce and tackle climate change.
In relation to Adani, one of the key objections expressed by my constituents is the proposal to use large amounts of government money to prop up that project. Reportedly, the project requires up to $1 billion in federal funds so as to make it a viable project. We know already that 74 per cent of Australians oppose that kind of use of public sector moneys. It is not just controversial, it is ridiculous, that Australian taxpayers should be forking out moneys on that scale to prop up a project when investment in the renewable energy sector is not only good for the environment but it is good for jobs, good for the economy and good for the future economy of this country.
I appreciate the member for Capricornia's concern for job creation. It should be and is the proper focus for every member of this place and every government. But that is why I find it so hypocritical that this government can continue to shout about jobs and growth while they ensure that Australia misses out on the economic opportunities of the global renewable energy boom. This government's attack on the renewable energy industry, most recently on display in South Australia, has had dire consequences for jobs and it has stymied the growth of an industry while the rest of the world has been reaping the economic benefits. This year alone, the Turnbull government's attacks on renewable energy have led to the loss of 2,150 jobs in the renewable sector. This brings the total number of job losses from renewable energy under the Abbott-Turnbull governments to 5,720. That is one in three jobs in this sector that have been lost under the watch of this government. In fact, when it comes to the energy debate, this government are real live job killers. Meanwhile, globally, renewable energy jobs have grown by 45 per cent around the world. Here we are contracting at a time when this industry is starting to take off globally. If we were making the most of this global growth rate, rather than squandering it since 2013, there would be 24,000-plus jobs here in Australia rather than the 11,000 we have present. That is an opportunity cost this government's policy—this government's rear-vision mirror image of this industry—is costing us right now.
Ironically enough, in recent days we saw ARENA—an entity that this government has twice tried to abolish—now saddled with the task of undertaking a feasibility study for an expansion of the Snowy River project, a project that the Liberal Party boycotted the opening of many moons ago. This media stunt, these pseudo-events, these partisan, crusader-like attacks on renewable energies are nothing more than an inexplicable ideological obsession that defies evidence based, sensible public policy and is costing us jobs now. It is costing our economy now. It is all well and good to put forward a motion talking about the importance of job creation and energy security, but if you ignore on purely partisan grounds or inexplicable— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Catherine King ) (12:23): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned on the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Burma: Rakhine State
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (12:23): I 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.
Those of us who are speaking to this motion recently visited Myanmar on a delegation hosted by Save the Children and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. We visited Yangon, Nay Pyi Daw, Rakhine State, as well as other places and we saw the nation firsthand around nine months after the election. The National League for Democracy led civilian government has been in office only since April last year. The military remains very powerful, with a constitutional right to a quarter of the seats in the parliament and the right to appoint three important ministers. Despite these obvious constraints, there is, nonetheless, a very high community expectation of the NLD government, the civilian government, in Myanmar. That government faces a range of challenges, including unrest and conflict in relation to Shan State, Kachin State and Muslims in Rakhine State, amongst other situations of conflict and unrest in the nation. Our delegation was grateful for the opportunity to visit Sittwey in Rakhine state. While we were there we visited a Rakhine village, and we also visited an IDP camp, where we were able to speak with Muslims who had been without freedom of movement since 2012.
Rakhine state has been a site of conflict and unrest for a substantial period of time. In October last year there was an insurgency in the state, where nine border police were murdered in a coordinated attack. Subsequently three townships were closed off, with a security operation being commenced. Since that time the UN, human rights organisations and others have been very concerned about human rights abuses in northern Rakhine State.
The UN special rapporteur had been in Rakhine State only a few days before our delegation visited. She has since given her statement to the HRC. In that she talked about some of the testimony that she received while visiting northern Rakhine State. She said that she visited Cox's Bazar, where she met about 140 people from several villages in the north of Rakhine and heard from them 'harrowing account after harrowing account'. She said, in her official statement:
I heard allegation after allegation of horrific events like these—slitting of throats, indiscriminate shootings, setting alight houses with people tied up inside and throwing very young children into the fire, as well as gang rapes and other sexual violence. Even men, young and old, broke down and cried in front of me telling me about what they went through and their losses.
In that same statement, she called for a commission of inquiry to investigate the systemic, structural and institutional discrimination in policy, law and practice as well as longstanding persecution against Muslims in Rakhine State.
I am aware that the Human Rights Council is considering what action should be taken in relation to these issues. Labor is deeply concerned at the reports of human rights abuses in Myanmar, particularly in Rakhine State, and our party condemns all violence, discrimination and abuses of civil liberties. The government of Myanmar must do everything in its power to protect all its citizens, including persecuted minorities in Rakhine State. We welcome the government of Myanmar's commitment to pursue peace and national reconciliation and we offer our full support for efforts to achieve sustained peace and genuine reconciliation.
That is why Labor calls on all parties to engage in a process that is transparent, open and independent. It is essential that this process is supported by consensus with the government of Myanmar. We call on the Australian government to speak out on human rights in Myanmar and to clarify and explain our government's position on the draft resolution in the UN Human Rights Council which is aimed at giving effect to the special rapporteur's recommendation for a commission of inquiry. The government should also do what it can within the international community to see that full and unhindered humanitarian access to northern Rakhine State is restored.
The delegation was a bipartisan one, and this motion today is also a bipartisan motion. It is to be seconded by the member for North Sydney, who is here. The people who were on the delegation, those of us who came from the Australian parliament and those who were there with Save the Children, had the benefit of seeing firsthand some of the conditions that people were facing. When we visited Rakhine State, as I said, we visited an IDP camp and spoke with people who had been without freedom of movement since 2012. Probably the most important thing that we saw was the efforts to increase and improve access to education and quality of education, not just for persecuted minorities but also for ethnic groups across Myanmar. The Rakhine ethnic group residents of Sittwe and the local village that we visited also have very, very significant obstacles in their way in seeking to get an education, particularly an education greater than a primary school education. It is important to note the use that Australian aid money has been put towards in assisting educational opportunities for everyone in Myanmar. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (12:28): I second the motion. It is a pleasure to do so and I congratulate the member for Griffith for moving what is both a timely and important motion on the situation faced by Muslims in Myanmar, particularly in Rakhine State. It is timely because the UN Human Rights Council is currently considering what action it should take following the report from its special rapporteur, but it is also important, because the clear evidence is that a large segment of the Myanmar population—the Muslims in Rakhine—are experiencing systematic discrimination and abuse of their human rights.
Myanmar is a country in transition. After so many decades of military rule, it has seen for the first time the election of a democratic parliament. For many of us around the world, along with its own people, we have watched the progress towards democracy with both concern and inspiration, as we have seen so many Myanmar residents maintain that commitment to see democracy achieved in their own country. Of course, no person has been more central to that than Aung San Suu Kyi, who is genuinely a hero to her own people but also an emblem for all of us around the world who believe that democracy is fundamental to the human rights and dignity of mankind that we all seek to achieve.
We should, however, not assume that the election of a democratic parliament is the end of that process; in so many ways, it is just the beginning and, as the member for Griffith alluded to, there are so many challenges facing this new government. It is effectively seeking to create a new civil administration from scratch after so many years of military rule. It faces a situation where the constitution it inherited still gives extraordinary control to the military, reflected in the fact that they have 25 per cent of the seats in parliament and a guaranteed right to control most of the defence and security departments and ministerial portfolios. It faces the internal conflicts that have racked Burma, and now Myanmar, for so many years and has established a peace process to try and tackle those issues. Most fundamentally, it faces those extraordinary economic and social challenges of lifting a nation that has been isolated for so long back into the path of economic and social development. None of those challenges, however, in any way relinquish the obligations that the new Myanmar government has to work towards ensuring that human rights are extended to all its people. What the international community has seen is clear evidence of the fact that those human rights, to the extent that they exist in Myanmar, are not being extended to the Muslim communities of Rakhine State.
As the member for Griffith mentioned, we had the opportunity to observe this firsthand through those of us who were privileged to be invited by Save the Children fund to travel to Myanmar earlier this year. The delegation's purpose was to look at foreign aid and the work of aid agencies generally, but it was not possible to be there without the issue of Muslims in Rakhine State looming large on our agenda. We had the opportunity to meet with senior officials from the national and the state government of Rakhine, with aid agencies, with the UN personnel on the ground and perhaps, most importantly of all, with many members of the local Muslim community—this instance, some of the 120,000 people currently living in IDC camps across Rakhine State. What was evident from that is that there are systematic human rights abuses occurring, which were reflected in some basic things like access to access to education and health care: members of IDC camps were simply not allowed to use hospital facilities in Sittwe, even in life-threatening circumstances, their movement across the state is restricted and, in many cases, they are deprived of the ability to leave the IDC camps; and members of the Muslim community are completed denied access to the normal institutions of civil society. More dramatically, however, we saw evidence of the systematic misuse of the military's power and the rape and burning of villagers and, in some cases, murder, as the member for Griffith alluded to.
The pathway forward is complicated but there is a pathway forward, and I think the recommendations that were outlined by Kofi Annan in a report released last week provide a blueprint to achieve that. I am pleased that the government of Aung San Suu Kyi has accepted those recommendations. But it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that she lives up to the promise that she has made.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:33): Australia has had a diplomatic presence in Burma, now known as Myanmar, since 1952. Unlike other countries, we never withdrew, even at the peak of the military rule. In 2013, I had the honour of representing Prime Minister Gillard to welcome military President Thein Sein to Canberra. It did not occur to me at the time that just a few years later I would be in Myanmar with this bipartisan delegation, funded by the Gates Foundation and organised by Save the Children, meeting democratically elected leaders from the National League for Democracy. Labor welcomes the 2015 election result and the strong economic progress that has been made in Myanmar over that period.
During our visit to Myanmar we saw firsthand the good that foreign aid can do. We visited projects run by Oxfam, World Vision, the United Nations Development Programme and the Danish Refugee Council. We saw Australian Volunteers for International Development volunteers. We visited Phandeeyar, where CEO David Madden told us about how Phandeeyar is working on building microenterprises. It is doing everything from teaching the Harvard CS50 computer science course and running accelerator programs for firms to working on democracy projects for its Open Development Myanmar program.
We were assisted by a range of staff, including Paul Ronalds, Peter Hodgson, Mat Tinkler, Sarah Carter and Michael McGrath from Save the Children and Australian embassy officials, including Ambassador Nicholas Coppel, Nick Cumpston, Esther Sainsbury and Jeremy Kruse. In all cases they were a credit to our country and to their role.
But we were also reminded, as we visited those programs, of the damage that an aid cut can do. When you see how Australian aid has helped to provide clean water to communities and how it has helped to guard against the volatility of agriculture, and when you see firsthand how we are assisting in providing agricultural assistance in the fields and the role that Australian aid has played in building an understanding of human rights and economic development then one is naturally concerned at the 25 per cent cut to Australian aid to Myanmar that has occurred over recent years. When Labor was in government overseas development assistance increased from 0.28 per cent of gross national income in 2007-08 to 0.37 per cent in 2013-14 and was on track to reach 0.5 per cent in 2017-18. Under the coalition, development assistance is now just 0.23 per cent of national income, the lowest level since comparable records began in the 1970s and well below the OECD's average of 0.3 per cent.
As other speakers have acknowledged, one of the large challenges for Myanmar is the treatment of Muslims from Rakhine State. The Rohingya are not one of the 135 ethnic groups recognised in Myanmar's constitution, and their treatment has been a source of great concern for the international community. The Human Rights Watch report on the military's response to the October 9 attack makes horrifying reading. The International Crisis Group has warned that an overreaction by the military could lead to Rakhine State becoming a flashpoint for global jihadis. ASEAN states, including Malaysia and Indonesia, have raised the treatment of the Rohingya.
We were pleased when, in our meeting, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Kyaw Tin, told us that Aung San Suu Kyi's view was that, as the military's response in Rakhine State is scrutinised, nothing should be hidden from public view. We greatly welcome that. But we were deeply concerned to visit internally-displaced people camps in Sittwe and to meet families, some of whom had been there for many years and are still living in communal living situations—circumstances we were told that were unprecedented, even in Sudan, for displaced people to live in for this long. The stories of women who had lost their babies because of their inability to access hospital assistance in speedy time were chilling.
I believe that Australia could do more to explain its position on key human rights issues, particularly the draft resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. Our military engagement must operate under the conventions that are necessary to protect human rights, but higher quality military engagement would improve our ability to influence the military in Myanmar to ensure that they abide by basic human rights standards.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (12:39): Mingalabar! This is the first word you will hear when arriving in Myanmar. It means welcome. This country is one of the most magical and undiscovered destinations in the world. Myanmar, formerly Burma, is a South-East Asian nation of more than 100 ethnic groups, and the bordering nations include India, Bangladesh, China, Laos and Thailand. The commercial capital and the largest city is Yangon, formerly Rangoon. It is home to bustling markets, numerous parks and lakes and the towering, gilded Shwedagon Pagoda, which contains Buddhist relics that date back to the sixth century.
Myanmar was considered for a long time as a pariah state under the rule of an oppressive military junta from 1962 to 2011. In 1990 the opposition National League for Democracy won a landslide victory in the election, but the result was not recognised. The generals who ran the country suppressed almost all dissent, and the house arrest of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was the international symbol, prompting condemnation and sanctions from around the world. Then, in 2011, the military handed the reins over to a nominally civilian government, following elections the previous year. Finally, in 2015, the opposition National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won enough seats in parliament to form a government.
The dominance of the largest ethnic group, the Bamar people, over the country's many minorities has been fuelling a series of long-running rebellions, although a gradual peace process yielded a draft ceasefire in 2015. One of the greatest concerns for those living in Myanmar is the need for true peace throughout the nation, especially in the Rakhine. Gradually the political landscape is changing. There is vibrant expectation, but there is genuine concern about where that area is going.
The Lonely Planet guide says of Myanmar:
It doesn't matter whether this is your first or 51st visit to Myanmar: you won't fail to notice the energy, hope and possibilities for the future that hang in the air.
It is exactly that air of optimism that inspired the International Women's Development Agency to embark on a first-time mentorship program for women in the Myanmar parliament to be linked to past and present MPs from Australia. The following are some words from that organisation:
Six newly elected women MPs from Myanmar sit in a room, buzzing with nervous energy as they wait for the six strangers flying to meet them. They're chatting amongst themselves about what they want to achieve in their careers, who they hope to be matched with, and where they see the relationship going.
It almost sounds like a blind date. But these women have come from four political parties and six ethnic groups to lead their people. The women on the way to meet them are seasoned current and former Members of Parliament from all over Australia, and they're there to mentor their newly elected Myanmar sisters.
It was indeed an amazing experience to be involved in this process, and there are many women involved in the program to make it a success. The mentors are Penny Wright, Claire Moore, Janelle Saffin, Judith Graley, Lesley Clark and me. Our mentees are Nan Htwe Thu, Khin Swe Lwin, Nang Khin Saw, Nan Moe, Khin Saw Wai and Chris Htun. The program supporters are Leonie Morgan and Jen Clark, along with the amazing Akhaya Women: Htar Htar, Cheery Zahau, Yu Mon Khaing, Alyson Neel and Nann Sandi Moon. Akhaya was established as part of an initiative to protect women from domestic violence. It is now a well-integrated social enterprise working on women's empowerment on many fronts.
Nan Chris Htun is my mentee. As a veterinarian, she is absolutely passionate about fisheries and livestock issues. She is already working on these and has been reported in her local media as a champion for the cause. She has suggested the abolition of the Myanmar International Cooperation Agency, whose proposed aim is to boost to fish and meat production and to assist in food sufficiency for the country, as it is not brought benefit to the people. Chris Htun recently advised:
There are challenges and needs for the veterinary sector, treatment, food supply, small and medium livestock and fishery businesses, and job opportunities, and (due to MICA), the country's economy has been crippled, causing losses of public fund.
Chris Htun has also called for transparency in the management of state-owned factories, and she is very concerned about where that money is going. I am proud of the actions of this young woman in her resolve to remedy some fundamental national issues. Chris Htun and I speak to each other each fortnight. We will do this for a full 12 months and we are developing a firm friendship based on respect and passion for our nations.
With women such as those involved in this program, there is a degree of optimism, but we really need to see the Rakhine area on the international stage and investigate how best to assist this fragile Myanmar democracy. We need to help these people all together. It is an amazing democracy, with difficult numbers, so difficult combinations of people have to work together in order to get democratic change and constitutional change. It is an uphill battle for them all.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (12:44): It was really a remarkable opportunity to be on a bipartisan delegation to Myanmar—sponsored and hosted by Save the Children, a wonderful NGO—in January of this year. We were able to view firsthand the great work being done by Save the Children and many other NGOs, largely through the Australian aid program and other aid programs, that was about strengthening governance and democracy—this new democracy in Myanmar—and, at the grassroots, implementing services to meet basic needs around hygiene—through the WASH program, which is fundamentally important—education and many other areas of need for some of the poorest people in Myanmar, and they are very poor. Something like 10 per cent of the population of 53 million are still on $2 a day or less.
We also saw some of the people in the internally displaced people's camps, populated by the Muslim Rohingya population, who had been forced into those camps. Their circumstances were even more dire than in some of those poorest parts of Myanmar that we visited as well. In a sense, the work of those NGOs is of critical importance to these people as they provide those basic essential services. In some respects, this is a conundrum, because the more these NGOs provide these basic services the less seriously the central government has to take its responsibility to provide those services. Nonetheless, it was good to see firsthand the aid program being implemented and to meet with the people on the ground who were the recipients of these programs and also those who were delivering the programs, to get a real sense of where there needs to be improvement or efficiencies in those programs. We had the opportunity of meeting with several government ministers, including the Myanmar state councillor responsible for foreign affairs, as well as the education minister and the Chief Minister of Rakhine State.
All the speakers have shared with us that it is a remarkably good thing that Aung San Suu Kyi and her party have won the recent democratic elections, and that is certainly true. They deserve our support. They need our support. We, of course, applaud and encourage her efforts, particularly with regard to the national peace agreement, which 18 warring ethnic peoples have signed so that they can move forward in a peaceful transition and share in the resources, particularly in those areas. So there is real progress there.
However, the reality is that there are real constraints on this nascent democracy. The reality is that the military still control 25 per cent of the numbers in parliament; they get that 25 per cent automatically. Don't we wish some of our political parties could get an automatic 25 per cent! But, more seriously, they control the three key ministries of defence, internal security and immigration and border, and that puts a real restriction on the ability of Aung San Suu Kyi and her government to have any real progress in some of these areas.
Frankly, this is where the main international concern lies at the moment, with the human rights abuses that we have seen against the Rohingya people in Rakhine State. There are 1.3 million Rohingya in Rakhine State. We were quite fortunate to be able to get access to those IDP camps, and we saw firsthand the camps that they had been forced into and the difficulties that they are facing.
We know that last year there was an attack on Myanmar border police and nine police had their throats slit. In some respects, what was very interesting was Aung San Suu Kyi's efforts, as far as we understood, to constrain the military's response. Unfortunately, that was ignored by the military. Rather than a commensurate or proportional response, we saw a scorched earth type policy where the military razed 1,500 Rohingya homes. They used rape as a weapon of war, and there is documented evidence for that, and they basically have forced 67,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh and over 100,000 into the camps.
This is tragic, and clearly there was an overreaction by the military in the worst possible way. It is our responsibility as members of the delegation—we have met with the foreign minister and we will be meeting with the shadow foreign minister—to talk through some of the more creative ways that we can work with Myanmar and Aung San Suu Kyi's government to try to limit, as much as possible, these human rights abuses against the Rohingya, allow them out of the camps which they are staying in, and provide real freedoms for that population. It is a difficult process, but we will do our best as members of the delegation, and I know we will continue to keep an effort going for the people of Myanmar and for the Rohingya.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:49): Like many of the speakers, I was fortunate enough to participate in that bipartisan parliamentary visit to Myanmar earlier this year, and I gained a better understanding of our investments in that country. We were able to meet with a range of ministers, officials and NGOs, and I also explored opportunities for the Northern Territory and Myanmar to strengthen our relationship, not just in terms of trade but in terms of supporting universities and other things. It is very important that we establish strong relationships with countries in our region, particularly those that many countries have had little contact with in recent years. Myanmar is embarking on a process of democratisation but is also—coming from a low base, granted—one of the fastest-growing GDPs in Asia.
I want to touch on some of those strategic issues to do with Myanmar, and why it is important for the Australian government to invest, before I look at some future directions. As far as threats to regional security are concerned, the situation in the Rakhine State may lead to increased refugee push factors and we have also seen that there have been some influences coming into the Rakhine State from the Middle East. There is a risk that people will increase their support to acts of political violence in that border area. It is a concern we should not ignore and we should increase our engagement with the Myanmar military.
Economically, Myanmar has a population of almost 60 million and, as it expands, we have seen Australian companies, like Woodside, work with Myanmar, but any instability will mean its ability to prosper and to use its resources will decline. Geopolitically, Myanmar borders two of the world's biggest powers—China and India—and as world focus continues to be on Asia Myanmar will be right in the thick of it. The stability of Myanmar and its ability to have positive relations with other members of ASEAN is very important and I commend Myanmar and the government of Indonesia for working together through some of these issues. They are some of the reasons we need to continue investing in our relationship with Myanmar.
I thank the Australian Save the Children Foundation organisation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and I thank the professionals on posts with the Department of Foreign Affairs, in Yangon, who looked after us well. The cuts to foreign development assisted by the current federal government are unfortunate because our good work there is being undermined by a lack of resources, particularly at this point in their transition when we need to be supporting them in coming to terms with new power relationships within the state.
We need to be more deeply engaged with not only their military but also with every facet of their government. I am not taking anything away from the work of our program there, on the ground, but we need to look at ways we can improve our military cooperation. There are a number of things we can do and I will be speaking further with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence about some of those ideas. We need to recognise that the Myanmar military still plays a leading role in the affairs of that country. They are constitutionally endowed with a lot of power not only in home affairs and border protection but also in the police, who come under home affairs, and defence—those big three key ministries—so that they still run.
I, like the government, welcome Kofi Annan's interim report on recommendations. It is an important process underway in Myanmar and we should continue to support it. In the report there are recommendations around closing camps, reintegrating people and setting up a body to bring people into harmony. They are important recommendations and should be considered. I seek permission to table a copy of Kofi Annan's interim report and recommendations.
Leave granted.
Mr GOSLING: Thank you, and I thank everyone who looked after us on that trip. We have a long way to go but we must increase our engagement with that country.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Trade Unions
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (12:54): I 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 NSW, Queensland, Victoria and the ACT, 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.
The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption found widespread, ongoing and deep-seated misconduct by union officials. Labor and their socialist chapter, the Greens, opposed the royal commission and opposed the government's efforts to clean up union corruption. Why would they be happy for unions to continue to exploit their members and engage in corruption, bribery, thuggery and maintaining links to organised crime? The answer is: political donations—the rivers of cash that are collected from hardworking union members and that are funnelled into Labor and the Greens. Unions spent $20 million in donations and campaigns against the coalition. Good unions have had a proud tradition of protecting workers' interests in this country for many generations, but the royal commission shone a light on disgraceful practices and dodgy deals and uncovered evidence of just how far some unions, supported by their Labor mates, betrayed their membership.
For evidence of betrayal, one only needs to look at the Leader of the Opposition. As national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, Mr Shorten authorised agreements to cut or remove penalty rates for low-paid workers. In at least one agreement he endorsed the removal of penalty rates for cleaners, without giving them any compensation. At the same time, the employer, Cleanevent, turned around and paid Mr Shorten's union $25,000 per year. It was Mr Shorten who happily stripped away penalty rates from Australia's lowest paid workers in return for secret cash payments to his union. Mr Shorten has the audacity to cry crocodile tears over the decision of the Fair Work Commission to change penalty rates, when it was Mr Shorten, in 2013, who introduced the legislation that requires the commission to review penalty rates every four years. He is the architect of the policy framework that brought about this decision.
The royal commission also examined many cases of alleged union corruption. In my home state of Queensland, then Builders Labourers Federation secretary and later CFMEU president, David Hanna, allegedly received more than $150,000 of free goods and services from Mirvac to upgrade his luxury home in Cornubia in 2013. Mirvac allegedly organised the work in order to receive favourable treatment from unions. In another case the Queensland and Northern Territory branch of the CFMEU attempted to set fire to documents that it had been ordered to produce to the royal commission. These examples highlight the need for more work to be done to uproot union corruption, but in January this year the Palaszczuk Labor government announced it was withdrawing from the Trade Union Joint Police Taskforce. This move can only be seen as Labor pandering to its union masters to secure its continued supply of donations.
The royal commission made 120 references of alleged unlawful conduct to law enforcement agencies, and the work of the joint police taskforce is invaluable. To date, action by the joint police taskforce and the working group of regulators to deal with civil referrals has resulted in six convictions for offences including blackmail, obstruction of a Commonwealth official and giving false testimony. An additional 13 matters are before the court, including a number of high-profile former union officials who are accused of fraud, blackmail and making secret deals with employers for their own benefit. These cases show that Queensland is not immune from union corruption. As recently as January this year, suspicions have been raised over the legitimacy of more than $700,000 of credit card spending in the Queensland branch of the CFMEU.
It is totally unacceptable that Labor would support a system where the interests of workers can be traded away and where employers can be held to ransom for industrial peace. Just last week we had the ACTU secretary, a union leader with great influence, promote an opt-in, opt-out attitude to lawfulness, encouraging people to take the law into their own hands and degrading our democracy. As I have said before, it is an absolute disgrace that the Labor Party continues to support and receive support from organisations that live outside the laws that we here are elected to make.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Wallace: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:59): Is this the same royal commission that Dyson Heydon was the commissioner for? And is this the same Dyson Heydon who was the guest speaker at a Liberal Party fundraiser during the time in which he was the commissioner for the royal commission into trade unions? Let's just be honest here when we are talking about party donations and party fundraisers. This particular royal commission was nothing but a witch-hunt and the person in charge of the witch-hunt was nothing but a stooge for the Liberal Party and in fact was going to be the guest speaker at a Liberal Party fundraiser where all moneys raised were going straight back to the Liberal Party.
So, before we listen to those opposite, let us just set the record straight about what this disgraceful royal commission sought to do. It was about nothing more than trying to tear down political opponents, which is all we see from those opposite. In the contribution just made by the previous speaker, there was no mention of employers who do the wrong thing and no mention of the fact that every single day there are employers in our community who do not pay workers, who rip off workers and who do not pay super. There was no mention or condemnation of the fact that every single day there are 457 visa workers in this country being underpaid or not employed in the job for which they were brought here. In fact, a Fair Work Ombudsman report exposed that one in four 457 visa workers in this country are working here on rates of pay that undercut Australian wages. Where is the government's condemnation of those employers? Instead, once again, all they seek to do is bash unions. That is all they seem to do: bashing unions and bashing workers.
Let's set the record straight about penalty rates. This government and members of the Liberal Party ignore the fact that, when you collectively bargain, your agreement must pass a 'better off overall' test. Sure, the workers may trade for a lower Sunday rate because they get a higher Monday to Friday rate. Now have a chat to your small businesses in your electorate and see if they want to pay a higher Monday to Friday rate. They very quickly go quiet when you talk to them about the fact that, if they want an agreement that reduces Sunday penalty rates, they have to trade it off and increase the rates of pay Monday to Friday. That is exactly what happened with the workers that were mentioned previously—a higher base rate.
Those opposite talk about secret payments. They are not secret payments; they are union membership fees. There was something like a payroll deduction. Workers signed up to a union and they said, 'Yes, I authorise the employer to deduct my union dues and pass it on to the union.' There is nothing secret about that. It has been happening for over a hundred years here in Australia, with workers saying, 'Yes, I am proud to join my union, and, if the employer is able to do so, deduct the fee and pass it on to my union.' Payroll deduction is not a secret, and it is nothing new.
Just to highlight just how ridiculous this government and their ludicrous laws are, we need go no further than the comments made by Justice Tony North just last week about the Turnbull government's Australian Building and Construction Commission. He said:
For goodness sake, I don’t know what the inspectorate is doing. I must say it's a terrible waste of everybody's time.
What caused such an outcry from Justice North was the fact that this government took two CFMEU officials to court for having a cup of tea. You would think that they would have more important issues on their hands than prosecuting CFMEU officials for having a cup of tea. This is yet another example of how this government are purely and simply going after their political opponents.
It is an insult to our democracy for this government to try to tear down a labour movement that has existed in this country longer than their political party. They are using our judicial system, our parliament and any means they can to attack their opponents. This is not Cambodia. This is not a country which struggles with democracy. We have strong foundations of democracy in this country; yet all we see from those opposite—whether it be the ABCC, the royal commission into trade unions or the registered organisations legislation—are their attempts to tear down our democracy. I am proud to say that I am a unionist and I am proud each and every day to be one. They stand up for working people to make sure working people's rights are protected, particularly against this government.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:05): I am grateful to my friend the member for Wide Bay for proposing this important motion. He has spent his entire working life serving the people of Queensland, upholding the law with honour in the Queensland Police Service.
I have spoken often in this place about the terrible impact of union malfeasance on our entire community—the cost blowouts, the delays, the damage to productivity, the undermining of the rule of law, the intimidation, corruption and bullying. When I look at the vital public infrastructure in my electorate of Fisher that my constituents are so desperately crying out for, I think of all the billions of dollars we have wasted as a country in paying for the results of this lawlessness.
The Trade Union Joint Police Taskforce has been making a real difference in Queensland. As recently as December last year, its officers arrested and charged three men, including one prominent member of the CFMEU, over corrupt secret commissions. By withdrawing from this special task force , the Queensland state Labor government is accepting the loss of additional Federal Police officers, $1.8 million in funding for the state and casting aside vulnerable workers—the very workers that the unions are supposed to represent.
There is no doubt that the union movement has enjoyed preferential treatment and access to the Queensland Labor government. It is senior ministers have regularly met with the CFMEU, the ETU, the AFULE the AWU, the AMWU, the plumbers union and of course United Voice.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: Why not, you say, but let's see that sort of reciprocal access to business. And the unions have certainly expanded the number of people they claim to represent since this state Labor government's election. The Labor government has gone on a hiring spree since they were elected—that is certainly one way of pushing down the unemployment figures; it is also a good way to get more people into the public sector union movement. The most recent figures, which are for the quarter ending September 2016, demonstrate that the Queensland Labor government employs a record number of bureaucrats—212,853 full-time equivalent employees to be precise. This compares with 196,856 in the months before they were elected—16,000 new public sector employees or, more accurately, many more than that since many of these full-time equivalent workers will be made up of multiple part-time employees.
Who is paying for these employees? Of course it is the Queensland taxpayer. However, expanding the potential market for unions with new state employees was not enough for this state Labor government; you also need to increase your conversion rate to really make your money. So, in May 2015, the Palaszczuk government reintroduced the union encouragement policy. For those who do not know how the Labor union alliance works, this policy document makes for eye-opening reading. It commits the government machinery in Queensland to encouraging union membership. It also gives unionists time off, paid for by the government, to learn how to become better unionists. It mandates the new government employees be given a statement saying that the government encourages them to join a union, and it ensures that unions will be given the details of new employees—presumably, so that they can harangue them to join up. If it was not so serious, you would think this was some sort of sick joke. Yet the Palaszczuk government has got away with it without so much as a whimper.
An Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of 2013 suggests that more than 40 per cent of public sector employees were union members when the figure across the board is only half that—that is, one in five. If that percentage holds up for the government's new employees, the union movement in Queensland looks set to make millions from their expanded membership. The Queensland state Labor government should be ashamed of this clearly self-serving decision, which has, at its very rotten core, a Queensland taxpayer-funded protection racket for their union mates. We have just seen, last week, the ACTU secretary Sally McManus and her entirely misguided, a la carte views on the rule of law. This House should condemn the Queensland Labor government's decision. We and the media should continue to shine a bright light on their now state-sponsored world of union lawlessness. (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (13:10): I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Fairfax referring to unions. I declare an interest. I am a member of two unions—the AMWU and the Independent Education Union. I would also point out that, as a solicitor, I have worked in private practice and for the Queensland minerals council. So I have worked in unions but also in small business, as an adviser and for mining companies.
The working lives of all Australians, as any one who knows history can attest, would be completely different if not for the advocacy of our unions. The first unions formed in Australia in the early 19th century, as 'craft unions', to increase the low wages of highly skilled urban workers and improve their workplace conditions. Midway through the 19th century, stonemasons won the right to an eight-hour day when their 'society' forced the issue by giving an ultimatum to employers. It was not until 1920 that most remaining Australian workers enjoyed that right.
Queensland, especially, has a proud history of unions fighting for workers' rights. The 1894 shearers' strike, although unsuccessful, was a turning point for the union movement in Queensland. In fact, the very livelihood of shearers was under threat in 1894. Shearers had been organising the unions for a few years already by 1894, in order to protect their rights. In response, graziers formed their own union, the Pastoralists Employers Association. In 1890 the pastoralists agreed that they would lower the wages of shearers, extend their working hours and retain the right to withhold their wages until the end of the shearing season—conditions that would, no doubt, be rejected by the shearers' union.
The shearers took strike action, but the conservative colonial government at the time supported the pastoralists, by sending in more than 1,000 armed soldiers and special constables, some armed with Nordenfelt machine guns. After some of the strike leaders were arrested, and with the very real threat of bloodshed, the unions called an end to the strike. But this was a turning point for unions and the working class—the point at which they realised that they needed a voice; they needed to have the worker's voice heard in politics so that Australian laws reflected not only the pastoralists' interests but the interests of everyday Australians. So there would be capitalists represented but also everyday working Australians. Five years later Queensland actually had the world's first ever Labor government.
Unions are still vitally important for all Australian workers. Even non-union members benefit from the conditions fought for by those who pay their dues. Unions obtained annual leave, sick pay, workers compensation, and health and safety standards. I think I can safely say that no gain has ever been spontaneously offered by an employer. Through the prism of the great achievements that unions have made for Australian workers, the $80 million trade union royal commission looks even more like the political witch-hunt it was.
Labor has always said that it will not stand for wrongdoing or corruption in unions, and I restate that. When there is wrongdoing, it should be investigated and punished. Crooks and thugs should be rooted out and brought before the courts. There have been 34 referrals of alleged criminal breaches from the royal commission. Those alleged breaches should be investigated, and the full force of the law should be applied where criminal acts are proven. Labor will always believe in the rule of law.
In Queensland, which was a major focus of the commission, only one union official, out of several hundred officials and organisers working in Queensland, was referred for prosecution. I am sure the member for Fairfax, as a former police officer, would understand that. One single Queensland referral is a long way from the widespread and deep-seated misconduct in the union movement that Justice Heydon referred to in his report. Of course, even one referral of a union official is one too many. It is a disgrace and cannot be ignored. But the member for Fairfax might also note that in Queensland the Heydon royal commission actually recommended more charges be laid against building industry executives than against anyone else. To put the number of referrals from the Abbott-Turnbull trade union royal commission into perspective: there were a total of 93 referrals, across Australia, relating to 45 persons or entities. Contrast that with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which has made 1,950 referrals—and increasing—to authorities. That is a royal commission that we absolutely needed to have, and I am very proud that Julia Gillard and Labor made it happen.
The Trade Union Joint Police Taskforce has been set up by the Turnbull government supposedly to 'bring union thugs to justice and protect hardworking Queenslanders'. After spending $80 million on a royal commission, which only referred one Queensland union official for prosecution, how can the Prime Minister justify millions more dollars of taxpayers' money being spent on continuing this political witch-hunt? It is especially disingenuous for a member of the Queensland LNP. (Time expired)
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:15): Just to correct the record, I want to pay tribute to the member for Wide Bay who put forward this motion today. I am the member for Fairfax. What a great member the member for Wide Bay is and the other speaker here today, who just spoke, the member for Fisher. Not only are these two gentlemen such wonderful advocates for the region of the Sunshine Coast but the first is a former police officer and the second is a former construction barrister—two men who know more about this topic than anybody in the opposition, as well demonstrated by the speakers opposite thus far.
The member who has just left the House very proudly said that Labor always believes in the rule of law. Match that with the other speaker who proudly said, 'I'm a proud unionist. I am very proud to be a unionist.' Only last week, Sally McManus, the new ACTU secretary, made very clear that she does not see any problem with breaking the rule of law. Leigh Sales on 7.30 said to Sally McManus:
Yet nonetheless, we live in a country where there are laws that are established by a parliament that all citizens are expected to abide by. So, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with those laws, you said that you believe in the rule of law?
Sally McManus said:
Yeah, I believe in the rule of law where the law is fair, when the law is right. But when it's unjust, I don't think there's a problem with breaking it.
That is the problem with the modern union movement and that is the problem with today's Labor Party.
I agree with the earlier speaker's very proud historical narrative of the union movement in Australia and I believe that the union movement should be proud of their past. What they should be dreadfully ashamed of is their present. What they should be ashamed of is that the very party that purports to represent workers is undermining workers. What they should be ashamed of is the fact that today's union movement defies the rule of law. It is not just one or two people who are a pox on the Labor movement. It is their fundamental business model. It is the way they do business, and that is the inherent problem of the union movement today. Having listened to the last speaker, I thought I had better look up the Labor Party website. You will be happy to know that it has a heading saying:
We'll put people first. Standing up for middle class and working class people.
What absolute rot. The suggestion by the first speaker was that the coalition government does not look after workers. Indeed we do, and that is what the ABCC was all about. Later this week we will have a debate in the House about a fair work amendment protecting vulnerable workers. That is the coalition government going into bat for the very people the Labor Party and the unions pretend they want to represent.
As the member for Fisher outlined, we in the state of Queensland have been victim particularly to the CFMEU. Queensland and Victoria almost compete, it seems, at the CFMEU level to see who can break the most laws. Three out of four issues in the sector attracting the commissioner's attention are in either Victoria or Queensland. Lady Cilento Children's Hospital was hit by the CFMEU; the Gold Coast University Hospital was hit; the Brisbane Supreme Court project was hit; the Queensland Institute of Medical Research project was hit; and something that is close to us three members is the Sunshine Coast University Hospital, and it was hit by the CFMEU.
At the end of the day, the Trade Union Joint Police Taskforce was established to start looking at these very problems. They were investigating 34 referrals, and what has the Labor state government in Queensland done? They have withdrawn participation in that task force, leaving vulnerable workers without any safety whatsoever. Let me give some gratuitous advice to the members opposite: when they next go to their website, their big banner should read, 'We'll put unions first, throwing middle-class and working-class people under the bus.' It is a disgrace and the union movement needs to be fixed.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (13:20): I rise to speak on the motion on trade unions moved by the member for Wide Bay, Mr O'Brien—a young member by National Party standards who grew up in a time of Australia's greatest affluence and social stability, underpinned by the union movement. Wide Bay is of course a constituency in Queensland—a state referred to in the 1980s, during the last period of sustained National Party rule, as the 'Moonlight State' because corruption in all its forms was so rife in government, the public sector and the Queensland police. Things have not always been that brilliant in New South Wales either, probably since about the time of the Rum Rebellion. But if there were a reality TV series called 'State of origin for dodgy dealing and influence peddling' I think the Queensland Nationals, captained by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, vice-captained by Russ Hinze, would win every time.
This motion proceeds on several false assumptions. The first is that for some reason Labor members would want to defend anyone charged with and found guilty of a serious criminal offence. This is clearly absurd. The second false assumption is that, for reasons unexplained, the Queensland government should just give the Commonwealth free police resources to assist with an ongoing ill-defined inquiry into some unnamed and identified Queensland union people. This is thought bubble, Turnbull government style leadership par excellence. I invite the honourable member to come to my electorate and meet the families that have benefited from the work of unions such as the HSU, United Voice, TWU, USU, the Nurses and Midwives Association and many other unions.
Not content with trying to frame the South Australian government over the failings of federal government energy policy, presumably this government now wants to hit the Queensland government with a gratuitous whacking, for no particular reason. With the ever-broadening choice of Labor state and territory governments to pick from, I suppose we should all just learn to expect more of this sort of thing from a Judas goat Prime Minister leading his flock to the slaughter.
Thirdly, the motion reveals that for this government any form of union activity is necessarily nascent thuggery. For them, the very existence of trade unions remains a conspiracy against free market principles and the right to exploit workers at every point. I know I am harking back to first principles, but I would remind this government that the rights to organise and to bargain collectively are basic democratic principles, irrespective of what this self-interested mob want to believe. So I freely admit to having been a member of Australia's most powerful workers collective for close to 40 years. It is called the AMA, and I have done very nicely. I am also proud to say that I am a member of the HSU.
When this ramshackle collective on the other side attack unions, what they really need to recognise is they are attacking the things that most of us consider basic rights, such as the 40-hour week, penalty rates, annual leave, maternity leave, equal pay for women, sickness benefits and occupational health and safety programs. In my lifetime we have had the unions and their heroes such as Jack Mundey to thank for the green bans which have protected much of Sydney's historical architecture from destruction. We also have them to thank for the fight against conscription and the Vietnam War, for which I will be eternally grateful.
In my industry, health, it is quite clear that the Health Services Union is continuing to fight for better conditions for all workers, particularly for the very lowly paid. We are of course aware that we work in a 24-hour industry, but health workers should be compensated fairly for working in extremely difficult conditions, and the fight goes on. The HSU is fighting to beat privatisation of New South Wales public hospitals. It has fought to achieve better death and disability protection for those most valuable workers, paramedics, and has successfully fought for return of superannuation money not paid to some of the lowest paid health services workers.
The principles that the trade union movement stands for have not changed. The Turnbull government is not so much conservative as reactionary in its headlong rush to target trade unions. It has forgotten that what most of us believe to be civilised working conditions are the result of years of work by the union movement.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:25): I rise to speak in favour of this motion, not because of party political affiliation but because this matter is an important one to this parliament, our community and our economy. I come from a state that has more often than not had governments in which significant decisions were accompanied by payments from those who benefited from those decisions. This was not a characteristic of just one side of politics but rather of both. Until the Greiner government of 1988, it was baked in—the cost of doing business. The people who suffered were the people. No-one liked it, but no-one had the courage to do anything about it.
Those of us who lived during these times like to think of the Greiner government as an inflection point in the history of our state. It was not to be. The name Obeid will be forever synonymous with corruption in government. Corruption is corrosive. It eats away at the bonds of trust that community is built on. When our institutions are corrupted, all of us suffer. Corruption undermines meritocracy, it misallocates resources, it distributes basic rights in a skewed and random fashion, it destroys our understanding of how institutions are meant to work, and it makes us cynical—so cynical, indeed, that people may, ironically, conclude that some laws are unjust because they do not apply equally.
Once corruption is baked into the system, it normalises deviancy. In those societies, both in the present and in the past, in which corruption has been and is pervasive, those who sit at the pinnacle of the corruption so often argue that the payments are necessary because no-one plays by the rules—that the law is optional. Those who benefit from this corruption argue that law is optional because it is unjust. To paraphrase Burke, for corruption to thrive it does not require good people to be corrupt; they just need to accept it.
The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption concluded that this is exactly what has happened in the trade union movement: good people have become complicit in a system that now not only accepts payments that pervert the cause of what the union movement is meant to be about but actually normalise these payments. It is a system, according to the royal commission, that has taken corrupt payments and turned them into facilitation payments. People often cite the Cleanevent deal, in which cleaners earning the minimum amount had their penalty rates traded away in return for payments of $25,000 a year to the union. However, more recently, in January this year concerns were raised about the legitimacy of over $700,000 in credit card spending in the Queensland branch of the CFMEU, which makes it even more curious that the Queensland Police Service chose this exact moment to advise the Australian Federal Police that it will no longer participate in the joint police task force into union corruption. You kind of wonder, when this happens and when you look at how much money the CFMEU donated to the Queensland Labor Party, why there is no interest in this matter from those in the media. Have they too come to accept that union corruption is baked in and not worth doing anything about?
Of course, this is not just about union corruption; this is also about employer corruption and the lack of fortitude that they have so often shown in dealing with the unions. They should be condemned just as harshly, if not more. If people in the system are not willing or able to shine a light on these payments then, given how much a community suffers from corruption, it is critical that this government—in fact, any government—act to bring these payments into the light.
That is why today the Turnbull government has announced that it will seek to outlaw secret payments between unions and employers—what the royal commission called corrupting benefits and what the rest of us would call outrageous corruption. And, of course, with the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act, union members now have more say over how their union is run. Consistent with that, this government will mandate that unions must disclose to their members any money that they receive from employers so that union leaders can be held accountable. Corruption takes what should be common benefit—whether that be in the form of better pay and conditions or more affordable and efficient infrastructure and public buildings—and privatises the benefits to the few insiders presiding over this house of cards. Corruption of this nature hardens the arteries of society. It ensures immobility and regression, but worst of all it makes all of us— (Time expired)
Ms LAMB (Longman) (13:30): I rise today as a member of parliament, a teacher aide, and a teacher aide delegate and union member with my union, United Voice, to speak to the motion by the member for Wide Bay asking the House to acknowledge the findings of the royal commission into trade union governance. It is a shame he is not going to stick around to listen to what I have to say about trade unions; he may actually have learned something. I am pleased that the member moved this motion—and, again, I am very sad that he could not be bothered to stay around and listen—because, after an extraordinary but unbelievable spend of $46 million on the commission, just one referral has resulted. If 'widespread and deep-seated' is a measurement of one, either I need a new dictionary or Australia is a much smaller country than I imagined it to be. What I understand to be widespread and deep-seated in this country is support for a minimum wage, superannuation, penalty rates and our world-class universal healthcare system, Medicare—all of which were fought for and won by unions.
I also rise to speak to the parts of Mr O'Brien's motion that go to the House recognising the work of the joint police task force and calling on the Queensland government to overturn their decision to withdraw from participating in the task force. Madam Deputy Speaker, you really have to ask why a government that continues to pull our country into debt has committed another $21 million to further investigating charges that have already been investigated by the commission, which found there was nothing further to answer. In the state of Queensland, acting independently of the state government, police commissioner Ian Stewart was very staunch in his decision to remove Queensland Police from the union corruption investigation. Mr Stewart told the Courier Mail:
… he could not afford valuable police resources to be swallowed up by the joint Trade Union Taskforce when all matters referred to it were concluded.
Finally, I rise today to speak to point (4) in Mr O'Brien's motion. This part of the motion goes to 'union mates', as he calls them, and the 'lowest paid and most vulnerable workers'. What I wanted to share with Mr O'Brien—unfortunately, he has left the chamber—was that the last part of his motion is a bit of an oxymoron. I will explain what a union is. I will put it as plainly as I can. I will explain it as any early childhood educator would explain it to a five-year-old. 'Union' means joining together. It is pretty simple. And 'mate'? That is pretty easy too. It means a friend. When set in the context of work, 'union mates' means the joining together of friends where work is their common purpose. What I would say to Mr O'Brien is: union mates are workers. They are workers like paramedics, public servants and school cleaners. They are radiologists. They are teacher aides, just like I was. They are retail and hospitality workers. Plainly and simply, the Queensland government and the ALP support union mates because they support workers—workers paying their taxes, unlike many of the businesses that the Turnbull government wants to give a tax cut to. Workers are raising families while having to suffer a cut to their family tax benefit, and they are looking forward to owning their own home if this government will, just for a moment, stop opening every single front door to a millionaire investor.
This motion really is quite extraordinary, isn't it? There are more than 360,000 union members in Queensland. There was a $46 million royal commission into their unions, and one referral. So let's call this motion for what it is. It is just another attack on workers, an attack on working people who elected each and every one of us in this House to fight for decent jobs, safe jobs. They elected us. This motion is an attack on workers who have the right to insist that a government governs for high-quality health care and education for every Australian. This is for every Australian and this motion is an attack on a fair go in life.
I am a little ashamed that Mr O'Brien did not stick around. He felt this motion was incredibly important, today, this International Day of Happiness, but this motion does not go one way at all towards happiness for any worker in this country. It goes right towards—shamefully—demonising every worker in this country instead.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:35 to 16: 02
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Gallipoli War Poetry
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:02): On Wednesday, 15 March I hosted a bilingual poetry reading event in my electorate for the book This Intimate War: Gallipoli/Canakkale 1915. It is the only contemporary Australian-Turkish bilingual book of poems on the Gallipoli-Canakkale war to date.
The event was held at Ilim College, and I want to take the opportunity to thank the school for making their venue available as well as for helping to organise the event. In particular, I want to thank Executive Principal Mrs Aynur Simsirel for her support and organisation.
This Intimate War: Gallipoli/ Canakkale 1915 is a collection of poems written by Dr Robyn Rowland and translated by Dr Mehmet Ali Celikel. Its publication in Australia and in Turkey is sponsored by the municipality of Canakkale. The poems recount the Battle of Canakkale. They convey the rawness and the cruelty of war, its hand-to-hand killing, the physical closeness of its soldiers and it unmasks the deep personalisation of the propaganda of war.
This book that defines our nationhood was shocking in its violence and in its loss. These beautiful yet brutal poems reflect the experiences of Australian, Irish and Turkish men and women during the Canakkale and Gallipoli campaigns.
The collection is a moving and intimate portrait of two countries at war while being embedded in a vivid and accurate historical context. Dr Robyn Rowland's award-winning poetry is characteristically known for its honesty of feeling and its emotional impact.
Berowra electorate: Storms
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:03): Last month the temperature dropped and a severe storm descended on northern Sydney, hitting my electorate of Berowra especially hard. There were hailstones the size of golf balls falling at my home in Pennant Hills, corrugated shed roofs at Maraylya were punctured with gaping holes and car and property damage occurred all over the electorate.
Over just one weekend, our brave volunteers at the Hills and Hornsby State Emergency Services received over 1600 calls for their assistance and they continued to serve late into Sunday night and the following week. The Insurance Council of Australia recorded more than 12,000 insurance claims with damages estimated at $31 million following the hailstorm across Sydney.
With the assistance of the surrounding Rural Fire Service brigades, the teams at the Hornsby and Hills SES cleared fallen trees and branches blocking egress areas, patched leaking roofs and assisted residents battling with water inundation.
I was pleased to personally thank the Hornsby and Hills SES volunteers at their headquarters during the February storms. The wet and wild weather continued in Sydney just this month. Last weekend persistent rainfall eventually took its toll with localised flooding on roads at Galston. The wild weather can catch us by surprise, but the response of our brilliant community volunteers does not.
The New South Wales SES are reliable and resilient. They are the backbone of the Berowra electorate in bad weather and are trained to deal with a range of issues that arise in situations like these. I would like to thank Reinoud Beijerinck, local controller of the Hornsby SES, Evelyn Lester, unit leader of the Hills SES and all the volunteers of the SES, the Rural Fire Service and Fire and Rescue New South Wales for their continued dedication to serving our community in times of need.
Dermer, Mr John
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:04): Deputy Speaker and colleagues, it gives me enormous pleasure today to welcome into the parliament and to acknowledge one of Australia's outstanding artists, internationally acclaimed potter John Dermer, who is celebrating 50 years of pottery and 40 years of working in Yackandandah. Colleagues, John is particularly famous and relevant to this place, because he was commissioned in 1987 to make 10 pots for Parliament House, and these pots now grace the Cabinet Room, both inside and out. So, in acknowledging 15 months of creative effort to make those pots, I am absolutely delighted and proud to welcome John and his wife Shirley to this place.
I would also like to acknowledge the huge contribution John made to my upbringing in working with my family to help us appreciate the role of art as both practical and functional. My mum and dad commissioned John in the early days to make a set of dinner plates and bowls for our family. John Dermer plates are now our family heirloom. So, John, on behalf of our community, Yackandandah, the state of Victoria and the nation, I thank you for what you have done. It gives me enormous pleasure to recognise and acknowledge your 50 years of creativity.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I would also like to extend an acknowledgement to John and Shirley and family. Thanks for joining us.
Groom Electorate: National Ice Action Strategy
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (16:06): Sunrise Way is a drug and rehabilitation centre in Toowoomba, working with others on the scourge of drug addiction in our community. Led by Wendy Agar and her team, they are helping people with drug and alcohol dependencies, doing the type of work that we all as a community wish was not needed—but the hard, cold reality is that it is very much needed. Last Friday I had the opportunity to be there at Sunrise Way to announce $5.5 million in funding on behalf of the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, as part of the National Ice Action Strategy, committed to by the coalition government. On the Darling Downs, this will see Sunrise Way as well as Teen Challenge QLD and Carbal Medical Services all receive support for their important work, including a range of treatment options such as counselling, intervention, relapse prevention, withdrawal management and residential rehabilitation. Ice is a community problem that needs a community response, and Sunrise Way is one of the lead agencies in providing just that. Continuing to find funding for its ongoing activities is a challenge for us all, but I am working hard with them and the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network to do just that.
Guides Australia: Queens Guide Award
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:08): When you are five or six, being a Girl Guide seems like a lot of fun, but I want to pay tribute to one particular guide, a member of the Hazelbrook-Lawson district, who through weeks and months of hard work was able to achieve her Queens Guide Award recently. Rachel Florey, from Wentworth Falls, completed a huge array of tasks for her Queens Guide Award just before her 18th birthday. I was honoured to be part of the awards ceremony held at Lawson earlier this month.
The Queens Guide Award is the peak achievement for youth members of Guides Australia. There is a series of challenges that Rachel had to complete. The one that stood out to me most was the planning and execution of a coast-to-coast walk across England. This was not a hypothetical task; this was an actual trek, and Rachel had to plan it down the finest detail and then do it. Her family trusted that she would get it right, because they went too—entirely in her hands; a big responsibility for Rachel. That really goes to the heart of the Queens Guide Award. It is about challenging yourself. Of course, she did not do it on her own. Rachel was supported by a group of people, including Senior Guides leader, Sue Bell; Rachel's parents Jane and David; and her Guide group. Rachel demonstrated maturity and poise as she accepted her series of awards, well supported by her district and region.
I would also like to pay special tribute to Sue Bell. After 24 years with Hazelbrook-Lawson, she is retiring as an active unit leader. Her legacy will live on in the young women that she has mentored over all those years.
Western Australian State Election
Canning Electorate: Telecommunications
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (16:09): Last weekend, Western Australians went to the polls and elected a new state government. I congratulate the McGowan government on its victory and trust the new Premier will join me and my WA colleagues by calling on eastern Labor premiers to do the right thing and fix our share of the GST at COAG. It is worth reflecting on the outcome of the state election, particularly in outer metro and regional Western Australia. In my seat of Canning, where I had a 20 per cent uniform swing against the Liberal Party, we also saw One Nation capture 10 per cent of the vote. In fact, in the seat of Mandurah, where local Labor member David Templeman sits, he increased his margin by 10 per cent, and, at the same time, the highest One Nation vote in WA, 12.9 per cent, was recorded.
This is a repudiation of politics-as-usual, and it is quite clear that regional Australia is hurting. We need job security and basic services from government, like roads and public transport, and basic services from businesses like Telstra more than we need identity politics. This is why I was at a kitchen table in Falcon last week, talking with a frustrated neighbourhood about their struggle for basic mobile phone and television reception from Telstra. This is why I have been fighting for the Serpentine-Jarrahdale Community Men's Shed, a great community organisation struggling to get basic internet services. We cannot allow Australia to have a two-speed economy or be a two-speed society. To the people of Canning, I say this: I have a schedule planned for the rest of the year. I plan to visit every single community and speak with you directly over the 6,300 square kilometres that is Canning.
Lalor Electorate: Weerama Festival
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:11): Weerama means 'to play' and is the name of the festival that showcases all that there is in Wyndham. In 1978, the Keep Australia Beautiful committee merged with the Wyndham City Council to form a festival committee. The festival has been at risk of shutting down, but, as always in Wyndham, a group of committed locals ensure that it has remained and gone from strength to strength. The 2017 Weerama committee are president Marcel Mahfoud, vice-president Amanda Littlejohn, secretary Rakesh Singh, treasurer Pam Strong, general member Ruth Mihelcic and general member Greg Leaman, and they have done an amazing job.
We celebrated Weerama on the weekend. It is a great day for families to celebrate the community they live in. Whether they were participants or they were marshals or traffic managers, everybody was out having a great day. The parade was, as usual, a showcase of community groups. I would like to acknowledge the businesses, clubs and service providers who helped with the organisation, in particular the sponsors: Gordon Institute of TAFE, Williams Landing, Paul Sadler Swimland, The Traction Factory, Jubilee, Werribee Football Club, Wyndham Warriors BMX Club, Western Region Environment Centre and Nearbuy, Wyndham's local business guide. It was an absolutely fabulous day. For me, the highlight of the parade is always our local fire brigades, dotted throughout the parade, competing to see who can blow their alarms the loudest and who can share the most joy with the young people as they travel down the street.
Corangamite Electorate: Great Ocean Road
Corangamite Electorate: Medical Workforce
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:12): It was my great pleasure last Friday and Saturday to be in Apollo Bay, where I visited a wonderful ecotourism proposal. I met with Lizzie Corke of the Conservation Ecology Centre, and heard all about her strong work to drive more tourism into our region, including the Great Ocean Road. We held our Great Ocean Road Summit, which was a wonderful community meeting, talking about the ways in which the community wants to see $50 million of upgrade money spent in their region. Issues like road safety, issues like bus and car parking and issues like international driver safety are all so important.
The next morning, I was at the Skenes Creek Advancement Association meeting, where I spoke about their wonderful proposal to connect Wild Dog Creek to Skenes Creek with a fantastic boardwalk and pathway right through to Apollo Bay, and the other needs of the Skenes Creek community, including upgrading the Great Ocean Road at Skenes Creek.
I also, very importantly, met with local people in relation to the issues with the lack of availability of GPs in Apollo Bay. There is a current crisis, I would have to say, in relation to the lack of GPs working in overnight urgent care. I am absolutely determined to be working with the local community to make sure that this issue is fixed. It is simply not tolerable the way it is.
Morton Electorate: Harmony Week
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:14): I rise to mention the wonderful ceremony I participated in on Saturday, a citizenship ceremony, as part of Harmony Week celebrations. It took place at the Centre for Interfaith & Cultural Dialogue, at Griffith University, where we were hosted by Dr Brian Adams. It was a wonderful ceremony with people from over 20 countries and 60-plus new Australians. Definitely, the best part of my job as a politician is to welcome people to Australia, to confirm that commitment to a strong multicultural Australia and the zest and economic opportunity that also comes from new Australians.
It was ably hosted by the MC, Lewis Lee OAM, who was conducting his 30th citizenship ceremony. I always love Lewis—I have been the presiding officer for many of these ceremonies and make the same jokes event after event, but he still laugh at my jokes. Also in attendance was Minister Mark Bailey and Duncan Pegg, representing the state government, and councillor Krista Adams from the Brisbane City Council. There were three levels of government working together to welcome these new Australians.
I welcome the fact that Griffith University took the time to host this wonderful event to kick off Harmony Week celebrations in our community. I look forward to future events with them.
Page Electorate: Sporting Achievements
Mr HOGAN (Page) (16:15): Today I congratulate a group of seven local high school girls on their fantastic performance at one of the biggest cheerleading competitions in the world. They are Shakira Jefferys and Jessi Abeleven from Richmond River High School, sisters Laura and Lily Davidson from Woodlawn College, and sisters Tami and Heyley Rose and Natasha Hern who all attend Trinity Catholic College.
All of these girls were part of a cheerleading squad that competed in the Asian Pacific Games in Australia with their results enabling them to compete in the American national championships held in Dallas, Texas, earlier this year. Due to the girls' hard work and dedication they were placed seventh. It was a great result at such a high level of international competition. Congratulations to all.
I would like to congratulate Lismore locals Stuart Thomson and Andrew Gordon. They recently represented the Far North Coast team at the Australian Canoe Marathon Championships in Sydney. There were representatives from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. They both spent many hours in the water for this event, training, and all the hard work paid off with them completing the course in under two hours: one hour and 50 minutes. This placed them in second position. Congratulations to them.
South Sudan Australia Peace Initiative
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (16:17): It is with great sadness that I rise today to bring attention to the continuing humanitarian crisis in South Sudan. The United Nations has issued a declaration of famine for the Leer and Mayendit counties of the Greater Unity region in South Sudan. It is the first famine announced anywhere in the world in six years. Many lives are threatened in South Sudan as well as Somalia, Nigeria and Yemen.
Despite a significant humanitarian response, the UN reports that food insecurity has worsened as a result of ongoing conflict displacement and the prevention of access to humanitarian aid. The ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in South Sudan is impacting on the South Sudanese community here in Australia, including in my electorate. Today I convey the message of the South Sudan Australia Peace Initiative, which calls for peaceful cooperation from all parties in South Sudan to ensure that urgently needed humanitarian aid can be safely provided to those most in need.
Three weeks ago I spoke in this chamber about the impacts of the drought in the region. Since this time the Australian government has announced additional funding of $20 million to provide support to vulnerable people in South Sudan and Somalia. The South Sudan Australia Peace Initiative wishes to acknowledge this commitment and asks for continuing solidarity from their fellow Australians as well as any financial support that can be provided to nonprofit organisations delivering humanitarian aid in South Sudan. The South Sudan Australia Peace Initiative renews their call for South Sudanese—wherever they may be—to commit to building peaceful communities founded on trust, forgiveness, healing and unity.
Petrie Electorate: Broadband
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:18): With the NBN rollout well underway, increasing numbers of residents in my electorate of Petrie are starting to make the switch. Just this week, in North Lakes, a second stage of the build was completed. It is an exciting time and, despite the enormity of the task, the switch, over all, has gone very well.
Unfortunately, a minority of retail service providers have been opportunistically eager. It might be timely to remind telecommunication service providers we expect them to be honest in their dealings and to give customers a fair go. Most have done the right thing, but taking advantage of pockets of people who do not understand technology is not a good look. Cutting off landlines without adequate notice may well put people at risk. To telecommunication consumers, I say the relationship between you and your service provider will be similar to the one that you have with your electricity retailer. If there is a fault, or you want to book an appointment, you contact your retail service provider, not the power station generator or a transmission operator.
Once NBN has laid the cable and you are ready to consider connection, you are in the hands of your free market retailer. Some have more scruples than others. When making the switch, look for value. The cheapest plan may not be the best plan to suit your needs. It all depends on your usage. Shop around when looking for your provider.
Thomson, Miss Riharna
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:20): Canberra lost a beautiful young woman earlier this month, and today I rise to pay tribute to her. Riharna Thomson was 22 when she passed away from injuries she sustained in a tragic accident: a fall while riding a horse in track work at Thoroughbred Park. I am sorry that I did not get to meet Riharna. I know that she was studying politics at the Australian National University as well as doing her track work, and I am sure that her passion for all things horses would have extended into her political studies and shaped her political views. I understand her workmates used to call her 'the minister', so she sounds like she was an extraordinary woman, and it is such a tragedy that I did not get the chance to meet her.
Riharna was a dedicated track rider, rising early every morning, and had been promoted to the position of stable foreman for the training partnership between Keith Dryden and Scott Collings. With at least 25 horses in work at any one time, this role would have made Riharna's ever-ready smile even wider as she worked in an area that she loved. Described as someone who always made people feel happier, Riharna was well known, well respected and loved in and by the local stable fraternity here in Canberra and the surrounding region.
Canberra held its Black Opal Stakes day at Thoroughbred Park on the Sunday after Riharna passed away. It was an opportunity for Canberra's racing community to pay tribute to her, and they paid tribute to her. My thoughts are with Riharna's family, her parents, Ian and Jane, her younger siblings, Colin, Braden and Bessie, and her friends at this difficult time.
Swan Electorate: Perth Stadium
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:22): I rise today to discuss the new Perth Stadium, a massive infrastructure project nearing completion in my electorate of Swan. Perth Stadium is a multipurpose venue designed to host AFL, rugby, soccer, cricket, and a broad range of entertainment events. The 60,000-seat facility was envisioned by the Barnett government and is expected to be completed and open for the start of the 2018 AFL season.
As the member for Swan, I was thrilled by the then state government's announcement to build Perth's new stadium in the suburb of Burswood within my electorate. I realise the benefits of this infrastructure project will be enormous not only for the residents and small business owners within Swan, but also for bringing big events, and therefore even bigger crowds, to the great state of WA.
At the 2013 state election, the member for Victoria Park and his Labor Party, led by Mark McGowan, said they would abandon the project and instead keep the existing stadium at Subiaco, which is no longer up to AFL standards, let alone a facility that would accommodate large sporting and entertainment events. Of course, the backflip from the member for Victoria Park came only after he had enjoyed a number of media events with Premier Barnett, promoting his electorate and the stadium and taking multiple photos with sporting heroes from WA.
What I cannot understand is how any local member of parliament could actively promote a project that would massively boost areas within his electorate, only to back out on this, toe the party line and actively support his party and its plans to move the project back to Subiaco. Thank God he was not successful, and, with my WA colleagues, we now have a target-rich environment in WA.
Indi Electorate: Mars Factory, 50th Anniversary
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:23): I would like to tell the House that manufacturing is alive and well in my electorate of Indi. Today I would like to make a special callout to Mars, the maker of over 550 million cans and trays of dog and cat food that leave the Wodonga factory every year. But the fantastic thing about Mars is that next week on Tuesday, they celebrate 50 years of production in Albury-Wodonga. What a magnificent achievement!
I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of John and Adrienne Mars. John came to Albury-Wodonga in 1965. He set up the firm—one of the first of the manufacturing firms in Albury-Wodonga—and it has gone from strength to strength. I am really pleased and delighted to welcome John back to Australia next week to celebrate 50 years. I would also like to congratulate and welcome back his daughter Linda, who lives nearby, and sons Michael and Frank.
I had the real pleasure of going to the Mars factory last Friday and learning about their zero waste efforts—a fantastic effort—but also their whole plan to use renewable energy. They are a leading company and they are really at the forefront of what is happening. Congratulations to all of Mars, to the 500 people who work there, to Brett Brown, to long-serving member Evan Jones, who worked at the factory the 45 years, and a special shout out to Barb Strand: a fantastic effort, and well done!
Energy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:25): Secure and affordable energy is the very foundation of our nation's prosperity. It gives me great concern that I read in today's paper an article by Robert Gottliebsen entitled, 'Energy crisis will be worse than expected, with costly blackouts coming', where he notes that without urgent action, with the closing of Hazelwood power station, next summer there will be a 75 per cent chance that residents of not only South Australia and Victoria but also New South Wales will face blackouts—a 75 per cent chance. The reason for this, my colleagues behind me, is the madness and the economic vandalism of the renewable energy target that undermines the viability of the existing baseload power generators in this nation and drives them out of business. That is the entire problem.
A 20 per cent renewable energy target put in by the former Rudd government was an act of complete recklessness. It was done simply because it rhymes—that was the only reason why—and our 23 per cent target is just as damaging. If that is not bad enough, the 50 per cent target that the people on this side of the chamber are pushing is the most reckless, dangerous and incompetent policy this parliament has ever seen. (Time expired)
Parramasala Festival
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:26): In Parramatta we have an enormous amount of talent, but it is not always seen. That is why for the last two years I have hired a stall at the Parramasala Festival to showcase some of our extraordinary local fashion designers. It means that they get the visibility they deserve, and, for me and people like me, we have the added benefit of being able to buy some clothes for our wardrobe.
Parramasala began in 2010 as a South Asian festival but has evolved into a three-day celebration of the diversity of Western Sydney's cultures. You are now just as likely to see a Balinese orchestra or drummers from the Cook Islands as you are to see traditional Indian classical or folk music.
I spent last weekend hosting the Own It store for the second year, selling clothes and accessories designed or crafted by local businesswomen. The labels included Ilham A Ismail, Pacific Breeze, Wachena Africa, Ruth Fattal Haute Couture, Melange Chic, Seewaa, Tiana Van and Voeurn Chea. As you can tell by the names of the labels, all of these designers have different backgrounds and bring their own culture, colour and experience to their designs. The response from customers is always fabulous to behold. We do not often have the opportunity in Australia to purchase necklaces hand beaded by the Masai women but designed by Fijian-Indian Australians or Indian hand printed wearable art.
Wearing an exquisite Islamic inspired outfit by Ilham A Ismail in white and gold, I also marched the length of Church Street with the designers and their models. Special thanks must go to Sharon Garrard for her creativity and all her support in making it happen.
Early Childhood Development
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:28): Most of us have children, and we want them to do well. We want them to inherit the best possible nation a generation from now. But, in reality, about one in four kids do not have that opportunity at all, and that is because in the first five years they fall behind and stay behind.
We have a developmental census that we do every year, starting with the first year of education, identifying vulnerability and at-risk kids, but we do not have a system that actually responds. It really is time for the Medicare Benefits Schedule, our health networks, our Health Care Homes that are under trial and, of course, the early education sector to come together with allied health and have absolutely real-time intervention to pick up these children and give them every opportunity they can to do well. There are three decades of evidence that say it is by far the best time to invest. We do not want to discover, when we have high levels of incarceration, teen pregnancy or unemployment, that we are two decades too late.
That is why I am delighted that ARACY and the college of physicians have come to this building to say that it is time to act early, and that people like John Eastwood, working in Sydney and bringing the best health pathways out of New Zealand and other countries, is starting to reformulate our thinking. We cannot wait until the year before school. We must grab every moment we have with young parents and their children—typically at a vaccination visit at general practice—and make sure that, if there is any suspicion or concerns amongst practice managers and health clinics, those children get the interventions they need.
Moorooka Laneway Festival
Ballistic Beer Company
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:29): I want to mention two events I went to in my electorate on the weekend—firstly, the Moorooka Laneway Festival in the suburb where I live. Steve Griffiths, Mark Bailey and many others organised this wonderful event with music, fun and entertainment that particularly showcased African culture. But the highlight for me, the zenith of my life as a politician, is that a brewing company has opened in my electorate. In fact, it is a brewery I can walk to, and hopefully should be able to walk home from. It is the Ballistic Beer Company in McCarthy Road, Salisbury. Their beers are available on tap at the Wellers Hill Bowls Club and at other places. David Kitchen, one of the owners, and the head brewer Lachy Crothers have these descriptions on their web page: David is a former 'chartered accountant, banker and diplomat'; and Lachy is a 'tatted young, idealistic, opinionated brewer'. So there is this mix of old and new. The 'crusty, conservative old fart', as David describes himself—apologies Deputy Speaker Claydon—and the young Lachy have a:
… team of complete opposites, determined to make beers that contrast flavours and find a happy place between old and new.
Sounds fine to me. I have to do some research into this small business in my electorate and I will report back to parliament.
Capricornia Electorate: Flood Study
Capricornia Electorate: Mobile Blackspot Program Round 2
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:31): I am pleased to inform the House that Isaac Regional Council in a remote part of Capricornia has been awarded a joint government grant to help cover the cost of a flood study for Moranbah. The council will be provided with a $67,500 grant under the joint Commonwealth and state National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience. The grant will cover 60 per cent of the cost of the $112,000 flood study for Moranbah to identify ways to reduce future risks and support disaster management activities in the coalmining town. A flood study will provide information on the modelling of the behaviour of local waterways in the shire and the impact on Moranbah. Meanwhile, I am pleased to inform the House that residents in six regions in Capricornia will benefit from six new macrocell mobile phone towers under round 2 of the Turnbull Joyce government's $213 million Mobile Blackspot Program. These include two new mobile phone towers at Bungundarra near Yeppoon and new towers at Stanage Bay Road in Livingstone shire, West Hill in the Camila district, the Gregory Development Road A in far northwestern Capricornia and the Bowen Development Road in the Collinsville district.
Lyons Electorate: Bream Creek Show
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:32): It is a great pleasure to announce that I was at the Bream Creek Show on Saturday in my electorate. This is an annual show, one of the better country shows in the country. I am sorry to tell my good friend the member for Moreton that not only do I have a brewery in my electorate but I have distilleries as well. Three of them were on display at the Bream Creek Show—Nonesuch, Hellfire and The Retiring; three very good gin distilleries. It was a great show. Giant pumpkins, boot-throwing, woodchopping, vintage cars—all the things you would expect from a country show. One of the unfortunate things was the lack of EFTPOS connection. The traders had signs up saying they had EFTPOS connection. Country people do not walk around with great wads of cash in their pockets and a bottle of gin is usually $100 to $200. When they handed over their cards, the EFTPOS just did not work. It is a real failure by this government to not provide telecommunications networks that are needed for regional and rural Tasmania to ensure that traders can operate properly at these sorts of shows. Thousands of dollars were lost which is a terrible shame for the Bream Creek Show. It is a great show and I encourage you to go there, Deputy Speaker Claydon, next time you are in Tasmania. Here's hoping the EFTPOS is working next time.
Tangney Electorate: Kennedy Baptist College
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (16:34): I was pleased to join Principal Mark Ashby, Chairman Philip Bryant, students, staff and parents of the Kennedy Baptist College to open the new Kennedy sports centre. Head Boy Joe Frost, Head Girl Anna Zwister, Deputy Head Boy Ross Stewart and Deputy Head Girl Ashleigh Black were excellent ambassadors for the college at the opening. The new facilities are a real cause for celebration for these student leaders and for the 1,300 Kennedy students. Two NBL-standard courts for basketball, netball, volleyball and badminton, and a fitness centre and change rooms are some of the best now in our local community. The new facilities are fantastic for the college physical education classes and high-performance basketball and cricket specialist programs. The lessons learned on the football field, netball court or basketball court are lessons learned for life: commitment to regular practice and improvement, working in a team, learning what it takes to win and experiencing defeat and then getting back up. These skills are just as important off the field as on. The Turnbull government has been able to provide $690,000 for the new Kennedy sports centre. I commend the college community for their contribution of more than $2.9 million. It will no doubt benefit not only the students at the college today but a generation of future students. My congratulations to the Kennedy Baptist College community.
Solomon Electorate: Health Care
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:35): I want to update the House on the progress of the PET scanner and cyclotron for Darwin. We have had a great breakthrough in that the Northern Territory government is going to put in $3 million to meet the shortfall, to be combined with funding from the federal government that was committed to by both sides of politics in the last federal election campaign. It is great to hear that the $15 million contribution from the federal government is still available and will be met with the $3 million from the Northern Territory government, which will allow a cyclotron as well as a PET scanner to be provided. The PET scanner is well overdue for the Top End. Not a week goes by without me hearing from someone who has had to travel interstate to have a PET scan. When people are in the fight of their life against cancer, they need all the support they can get. In the next 18 months or so, according to the Northern Territory government, we will have a PET scanner, giving Territorians that life-saving help.
Maranoa Electorate: Australian Vinegar
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (16:37): Most people know Stanthorpe on the Granite Belt as Queensland and Australia's premier wine region, with more than 100 cellar-door wineries producing dozens of wine varieties, but it is also home to Australia's top vinegar manufacturer, Australian Vinegar. Under the Lirah brand, Australian Vinegar supplies a quality product to many of Australia's best restaurants and exports around the world to many countries, including Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. The story behind Australian vinegar is a story of true entrepreneurship, vision and innovation. Mr Ian Henderson, the CEO, started making vinegar nine years ago in his backyard in millilitre retail quantities. Only four years ago, he hired his first employee. Today, Mr Henderson employs a growing complement of staff and produces thousands of litres of vinegar per day in his newly constructed facility for bulk export and supply to the domestic market. This Saturday in Stanthorpe, I will be attending the official opening of Australian Vinegar's head office and innovation centre, with the Governor-General. Before I do, I would like to extend my congratulations to Ian and Robyn Henderson ahead of this terrific milestone and for their tireless and inspirational commitment to innovation and the community of Stanthorpe.
Canberra Electorate: Returned and Services League
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:38): Last week, I had the great pleasure once again to attend the ACT RSL's annual congress and AGM. I have been going to these meetings since 2011 and it is always a great pleasure to catch up with the vets and those who serve our vets in our community. It was also wonderful to be joined by the shadow minister for veterans affairs, who made a wonderful speech. It was great to see her there on the day. There was also a very powerful speech by retired wing commander Sharon Bown. Many awards were presented to veterans and those who have served the community. I want to go through a few of them: Peter Eveille, John Girch, Reginald Gillard, Peter Sutton, Jan Omerod, Raymond Aitchison, Reginald Andrew, Donald Cameron, Everard Cotterill, Murray Crawford, Kevin Cremer, Frederick Duchurst, Monica Bailey, Peter Baldwin and Robyn Wheeler. Finally, I want to thank Peter Eveille who is retiring as president. He has been president of the RSL branch for three years. Thank you so much for the service that you have given to our community, Peter. I also wish John King, who is the incoming president, all the best. I trust he has big boots to fill. Peter has been an extraordinary president. I wish John all the best. Thank you again, Peter, for your commitment to our community.
Moore Electorate: HBF Arena
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:40): Population growth in my electorate has contributed to the increased need to expand local recreational sporting facilities. I am pleased to inform the parliament that construction works on the HBF Arena redevelopment at Joondalup are well advanced with the $24 million project on track to be completed later this year. This final phase will complete the four-stage redevelopment of the sporting complex, which has already included new netball courts and rugby fields. When complete, the new WAFL football clubrooms will include spacious function areas, new player amenities, football development services, office administration and member facilities for the West Perth Football Club. The federal government recently provided two separate grants under the Stronger Communities program to acquire new gymnasium equipment and a minibus for junior and multicultural development programs. The new basketball stadium under construction at the front of the complex will become the new headquarters for the Wanneroo Basketball Association, the Wanneroo Wolves. The stadium will feature four new indoor basketball courts, new player amenities and an administration area. Residents in the northern suburbs will soon be able to access a range of sporting amenities, including aquatic facilities with a 50-metre swimming pool, WAFL, rugby, basketball, netball, and athletic and gymnasium facilities in one central and convenient location.
Parramatta Electorate: Holi Festival of Colours
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:41): On Sunday I attended two Holi Festivals of Colours in the Parramatta electorate. The first one, hosted by Hindi Samaaj, a regular event at Upjohn Park, was its usual wonderful family gathering. People came together in the tradition of Holi to laugh, play, forgive and repair broken relationships. They sat together for quite some time playing traditional music and singing. Of course, the traditional covering of each other with colours was undertaken. They were very bright, with red, yellow, blue and green all over their faces and their bodies in a wonderful celebration of a very old festival. Then I went to North Parramatta for a second festival hosted by Hindi Gaurav, which is one of our leading Hindi magazines. I thank Anuj Kulshrestha, the editor, for the invitation. It too was a wonderful event, with a very large area and lots of mainly young people getting very brightly coloured and smearing the colours on each other. One of my close friends there told me that the Festival of Colours also represents everyone accepting each other for who they are, separate from the colour of our skin, where we are all the same underneath. For him, the spreading of colours represents that we are all human beings and we are all equal. It was a lovely story that he told. He was covered in colour from head to foot at the time. I thank everyone in my community for sharing with me one of their great events.
Wide Bay Motor Complex
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (16:43): The great city of Maryborough in Wide Bay is known for its serene environment and heritage architecture, but it also has a long history of a different kind. Motor sport enthusiasts have enjoyed the sound of highly worked race engines screaming towards the red line, exhausts blasting from high-octane combustion engines, tearing up the ground, rally and speedway driving. Yes, Maryborough for decades has had a proud motorsport history. I commend the work of President, Ben Collingwood, and his committee of Tony Downs, Scott Rodgers, Grant Maw, Janine Pay and Dave Deem for bringing forward their vision for the Wide Bay Motor Complex in Maryborough. The complex will enhance Maryborough's reputation as a motorsport town and will contribute $13 million to the local economy. Big plans for the complex include high-level drag racing and rally events, an international competitive standard drag strip, club car circuit, and automotive trade, mechanical and retail businesses.
I was pleased to support the club's inaugural fundraising event, for their first ever rally sprint. I was impressed by the high level of professionalism and focus on safety by Kelli Hurford. Thanks to everyone who organised the event. It is hoped the motorsport complex will also contribute towards driver training education, which is very important for local young people like my daughter, Yve, who turned 16 today and has already got her learner's permit. Happy birthday, Yve!
Diabetes
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:45): I rise today to speak on the importance of diabetes awareness in Australia. Currently 1.7 million Australians are living with diabetes, a figure which is set to increase to 3½ million in two decades. While we are proud in Australia that we have the highest standards of pathology testing worldwide, diabetes is still the No. 1 health challenge facing the country. Indeed, my electorate of Grey has the highest rate of the disease nationally.
With my co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Diabetes, the member for Moreton, I am pleased to be involved with two significant upcoming events to promote diabetes awareness, in conjunction with Diabetes Australia and Pathology Awareness Australia. This Wednesday, members, senators and staff are invited and encouraged to partake in a complimentary blood test so as to learn about their own diabetes status and possible risk factors. The blood tests will be done right here in Parliament House, in the area that used to be occupied by the parliamentary travel office, starting at 8 am on Wednesday. Be there or be square. It might save your life.
Mr Perrett: Next to Aussie's.
Mr RAMSEY: That is quite right. Thank you, Member for Moreton. It is vital that we convey this message of prevention clearly, as so many cases could be avoided if the risk factors were known early. Pathology testing is a sophisticated way of detecting risk factors in order to put preventive measures in place. Interestingly, 70 per cent of the wider medical community rely on those tests. Next Tuesday I will also be pleased to hold a research progress event with Juvenile Diabetes Research Association, who have been working hard in the area of type 1 diabetes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Workplace Relations
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:46): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the retail trade 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.
The cut to penalty rates will hurt more than half a million Australians, and many of those hurt will be young Australians working in shops, supermarkets and department stores. These are sons and daughters. We have a duty to offer them a better start in life, not a harder one, but we do not seem to be making a good fist of it. Houses are more unaffordable than they have ever been. Reliable and affordable public transport is next to non-existent in regional communities. Education is falling behind internationally. Apprenticeships are in steep decline. Healthcare costs are rising sharply. As for jobs, those that have not been automated are being casualised and contracted out, with exploitation becoming the norm rather than the exception. And now, for those young people who are in work, many in the retail sector, there will be a cut to penalty rates for working Sundays and public holidays, days that most of us get to take off and spend with family and friends.
There are some in this parliament, and certainly some in the corridors of big business, who seem to believe that a proper wage should not matter to young people, that somehow work for young people is all about gaining experience and character building and that a wage is some sort of bonus. When did we start pretending that being paid is not the primary motivation of being employed? When it comes to pay, young people get a pretty raw deal. The younger you are, the less you earn, even if the work you do is the same as someone over the age of 21.
Let's not forget that in Australia you are not an adult worker until you are 21. You can vote at 18, go to war at 18 and die for your country at 18, but you are not an adult worker until you are 21. A 15-year-old casual retail assistant earns $10.94 an hour. That rises to $17.50 an hour on Sundays and to $24.06 on public holidays. This is a low wage already, yet it is about to go even lower because of the Fair Work Commission's decision to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates—a decision backed by those opposite.
Young people between the ages of 15 and 21 do not work just to earn a little pocket money. Many of them work to put food on the family table or to support themselves while studying. That was my own experience. I lived at home with my mum throughout high school, but my 24 hours every weekend at Hungry Jack's for nearly seven years helped my mum, a school cleaner, with groceries and bills. I paid for my own car and my own petrol, my own clothes and, ultimately, my own text books and other university expenses. But, despite all that, I had the luxury of living at home with a mum who cooked and cleaned and did my laundry. Many thousands of other young people are fending for themselves on wages that are already low. They cannot afford $77 a week to be stripped from their weekly pay.
The Conversation reports that as many as 40 per cent of young people rely on penalty rates to survive. The member for Gilmore told her local paper that this decision was a gift because it opened the door for more hours of employment. Can I say to the member for Gilmore that it is not a gift to be told to work 10 hours tomorrow for the same pay that you receive for eight hours today. That is not job creation; it is a pay cut.
The young people of this country deserve better. They deserve respect for the work that they do and the contributions they make and they deserve a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, just like every other Australian worker. This parliament has a chance to stand behind the young people of this country. It can, and it should, vote to pass the amendments to the Fair Work Act that the Leader of the Opposition moved in the House this morning. These are amendments that will protect Australians' pay from being cut.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr Champion: I am pleased to second the motion.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:53): I greatly appreciate the member for Lyons's concerns about young people and their penalty rates. But I ask the member for Lyons: where were you when those union officials from the shoppies' association were cutting all their penalty rates? You talked about how you were previously employed at Hungry Jack's.
Mr Brian Mitchell: I was.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: And you were getting penalty rates?
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: I am sure I was.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Do you know what the penalty rates are at Hungry Jack's at the moment?
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: I have no idea.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: They are a duck egg: zero on a Sunday. Do you know why? Because they have been ripped off in dodgy deals by the Labor Party.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Here we go! The member for Lyons might like to explain to us: how is someone who only works on a Sunday better off overall if they do not get any penalty rates at all? How are they better off? It is a complete and utter nonsense, and this nonsense has been exposed by the Fair Work Commission. They said the dodgy Coles' agreement that was signed up by them was found to not pass the better-off-overall test. By who? By the Fair Work Commission themselves. And what were these things traded off for? What were they really traded off for?
They were traded off for greater union control and greater union power. Let's go through the KFC National Enterprise Agreement. What did they trade off their penalty rates for? KFC workers, who get a ducat on a Sunday, were ripped off by the unions, and this is what they were ripped off for:
The employer—
which is KFC—
undertakes to positively promote union membership by recommending that all employees join the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (the Union).
It says:
All employees, including new employees at the point of recruitment, shall be given an application form to join the union, together with a statement of the employer's policy.
What 15-year-old kid who has that form shoved under his desk before he starts is not going to sign it? Of course he is going to sign it. And what happens when he signs it? Firstly, he gets zero penalty rates, but, even worse than that, it gives the unions the opportunity to raid his pay packet.
This is clause 41.4:
The employer undertakes, upon authorisation, to deduct union membership dues as levied by the union in accordance with its rules …
They are the union's rules—so the union decides how much it will deduct from the pay of these poor workers that you guys are so concerned about. What an absolute farce! What a pack of hypocrites you lot are, talking about young people. It goes on:
Such monies collected will be forwarded to the appropriate branch of the union at the beginning of each month …
What an outrage! It is unbelievable. And where does that money go? Who was the biggest receiver of the Labor Party funds of the shop assistants' union? It was you lot! Your election campaigns are financed by taking money out of the youngest employees—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The member for Lyons might like to direct his comments through the chair.
A government member: Hughes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hughes. My apologies, and no reflection on the member for Lyons.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Thank you, Chair. The point that I was making is that here we have the youngest workers in the country earning some of the lowest wages because their salaries have been deducted from and they get zero penalty rates on a Sunday because of union deals. Worse than that, the unions are able to put their hands into those kids' pockets and pull out their union fees, and for what? Hallelujah—they get their penalty rates cut. What an absolute disgrace!
We know why the Labor Party are so upset about this and why they will not tell the truth. They will not tell the truth, which is that this does not affect workers from Coles, or Woolworths, or Big W, or Target, or K-Mart, or David Jones, or McDonalds, or KFC, or Pizza Hut, or Red Rooster, and so on and so on. It affects none of those workers, because they have already been done over by their own unions, having their penalty rates ripped off them. We have a situation in the country that is even worse. We have a small business that might want to employ someone like the member for Lyons, who used to work at Hungry Jack's. He might say, 'I could give you 26 bucks an hour,' but he is not allowed to. An independent business could say to the poor worker getting $21 an hour: 'We want to employ you at $26 an hour. We want to give you more money. We want to give you a raise.' And do you know what? Under current legislation they cannot do that, because they are all stitched up by the Labor Party. You guys, we are going to talk about these penalty rates for as long as we want, because you are a pack of hypocrites on this. (Time expired)
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (16:58): That was an extraordinary performance, wasn't it? It is hard to follow such wilful belligerence, but I will try. Some of the talk about working in the retail industry made me a bit wistful and nostalgic about my days as a trolley collector. I worked for a contractor who contracted to Coles. I worked on the award and I did not get any of my penalty rates, because the contractor decided not to pay them. I looked at the front of Coles every day as I brought the trolleys in and I thought, 'I wish I could be under their enterprise bargaining agreement.' That is what I thought, because I knew the reality of the situation. And the fundamental structure of these things has not changed.
The honourable member talked about the award and he talked about enterprise bargaining, and we need to have a few facts about this. Nearly all of these agreements are voted on by workers, so what happens with an enterprise bargaining agreement—
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: The member for Hughes might want to listen instead of belligerently shouting at people the whole time. He shouts down Sky, he shouts in the House—shout, shout, shout. He might just want to listen. All of the workers on these enterprise bargaining agreements vote to either accept the agreement or reject the agreement. Now, what worker would vote for less pay and less conditions? Answer: no worker would. There is a democratic vote at the start every one of these enterprise agreements and guess what?
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: No, that is not true. There is actually a comparison document between the award and the enterprise bargaining agreement. It has to be put there by law. It has to be in both agreements and the award, and it has to be in the lunch room. They have to have two weeks to consider the agreement. There is a whole series of steps. There has to be consultation by both the company and the union with the workforce and then the workforce votes in a secret ballot. Workers are not going to vote for an agreement that does not lift their wages and conditions. Let me tell you something about Coles. When I started as a union official with Coles, they had 80 per cent casual and 20 per cent permanent staff. But, if you go to any Coles across the country now, they have 80 per cent permanent and 20 per cent casual staff. That is because most of the workers are on permanent part-time contracts.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: No, actually, that is not true. I have actually got the rates here, so let's listen to them. The retail award hourly rate is $19.44 and at Coles it is $21.93. Now, you might say, 'What about Saturdays?' On Saturday, the retail award is $26.25 and at Coles it is $27:41. Then we get to Sunday, it is $29.16 and then we get to Coles where it is $32.89. There it is in black and white. I can read out the casual rates for you too, if you want. Do you want the casual rates?
Mr Craig Kelly: Come on!
Mr CHAMPION: A casual employee under the award gets $24.30 and under Coles they get $27.41. So, it does not matter what rate you go on, or on what day, it is always higher because it is an enterprise bargaining agreement. The workers have worked for and voted on it.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: Yes, you can have the comparison document. That is why most of the workers want this agreement. They want the 2015 agreement because it provides pay rise after pay rise and better conditions overall. That is because it is an enterprise bargaining agreement.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: Because the Fair Work Commission had rocks its head when it made that decision, I do not mind telling you. They turned their back, and you should not be celebrating this, they turned their back on 20 years of enterprise bargaining and they should not have done that. If you want to talk about small business not having access to these rates, let me tell you they did. In South Australia, the SDA did a deal with Business SA. It was a template agreement that was offered to all small retailers. Do you know how many of them took it up? Zero. Because it lifted their labour costs up and it lifted the conditions up.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr CHAMPION: No, all they had to do was avail themselves of the opportunity. But they did not, because what the SDA negotiated enterprise bargaining agreements do is lift wages and conditions for workers. That is why workers vote for them and that is why small-business operators avoid them like the plague.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (17:03): In speaking about this motion, it is very important to make two key points at the outset. Small business creates jobs in Australia, especially in regional Australia, where I am from. It is clear that small business, from what we can see, has welcomed the independent decision of the Fair Work Commission. The coalition understand these points very clearly. We know governments, unions and others do not create jobs—employers do, especially small business employers. We will always stand up for the small businesses who want to expand, create jobs and keep those jobs in place, or stand up for the unemployed who want to have an opportunity and the underemployed who simply seek more work hours. We have heard from many small shops and retailers who have traditionally found it too expensive to open on a Sunday. This decision to modify Sunday penalty rates will help them now to open their doors, compete on a level playing field with big business and, most importantly, create more jobs than ever before. That is essentially what the Fair Work Commission concluded in making its decision on minimum penalty rates, which also takes into account modern retail shopping trends where many more customers want to shop and where more people want to work on Sundays, especially young Australians.
This has been an independent decision on employment awards and conditions made by the Fair Work Commission free of any suggestions of political interference so as to ensure such decisions are evidence based, not political. The commission has spent years, we know, studying the evidence, receiving submissions and interviewing witnesses. It has carefully considered the views of unions and employer organisations alike.
Let's just remind ourselves of the history of the commission and its reviews: set up by the Gillard Labor government in 2009; tasked by Labor to review awards by the same Labor government in 2013; and specifically required to consider penalty rates as part of that process by the Labor workplace relations minister, now opposition leader, Bill Shorten, in 2013. Of course it was Labor who appointed all members of the commission who made this penalty rates decision. I note the former Speaker said they must have had rocks in their head and yet they appointed them.
For the opposition leader and his Labor team now to not accept the result is absolute hypocrisy and political opportunism in its worst form. Those opposite should drop their blatant political games and recognise the position of small business throughout this country who themselves recognise the opportunities that the Fair Work Commission decision opens up for them, their communities and, most importantly, their employees, who will have more access to more work, should they wish or, in the case of others, new jobs where they have not existed previously.
In my regional electorate of Groom, this is exactly what small businesses, especially retailers, who create and sustain jobs, have said to me. They are saying they recognise this as an independent decision. For some, it will mean no change to the penalty rates they pay; for others, it will mean they can open when they could not beforehand therefore providing new jobs that do not currently exist.
The Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce has provided me with feedback at their own instigation about local businesses who are experiencing that planning going forward whereby they can now take up opportunities for themselves, their employees and new employees that have not existed before in retail, as we are discussing here in the chamber today, but also in hospitality and other services.
They recognise their small businesses as the engine room of our regional economy, and the decision of the Fair Work Commission, as originally established by the Labor Party, now means that they can provide more jobs, more opportunities and provide the benefits to our community that the Labor established and appointed Fair Work Commission itself recognised would flow. Thank you.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (17:08): I rise to support this important motion. The proposed changes to penalty rates approved by the Fair Work Commission—and still, I have got to say, unopposed by the Turnbull Liberal coalition government—is an absolute devastating blow to 700,000 workers around the country.
These 700,000 workers could lose up to $77 a week from their pay cheque. As we have heard today from other speakers in this place here and downstairs, this is money that could be used to pay for food, to pay for schools, for kids for their shoes, the electricity bill, the rent et cetera
In my electorate of Hindmarsh, it would affect over 12½ thousand people who live in my electorate alone. These are people who are already earning low wages and give up their valuable Sundays and public holidays to work. Protecting penalty rates goes hand in hand with protecting workers' rights.
Why is this important?
It important because we know workers are the engine of our society. They are the ones who absolutely get the economy going—money going around, paying for their day-to-day living et cetera. As I said, they are the engine of our society and our economy. That is why it is important.
According to research undertaken by the Economic Policy Institute,
Improved worker rights have been shown to offer a solid foundation for strong and stable economic growth by supporting demand and stabilizing local currencies and banking systems.
The research tells us that this is not only morally correct; it also makes good economic sense to ensure that workers have good conditions, are paid the proper wages and are renumerated for giving up a very important weekend without their families, without taking the kids to sport or perhaps not going to the church services that they may regularly go to on Sundays. That is why it is important to ensure that they are rewarded on these days because they are working when the rest of us are enjoying everything else. It is morally correct, and, as I said, it also makes good economic sense. The research finds that better workers' rights result in high productive growth, thus leading to faster economic growth. Also, improved workers' rights tend to result in a better distribution of income among workers and between different companies and firms. As the benefits of faster growth are more evenly distributed, local demand is stronger and more stable, thus reducing the chance of a financial crisis.
As opposed to what the Liberal government would have us believe, it is not just unions that are fighting for penalty rates; even the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, has, in recent years, found that the argument for higher wages stifling employment does not stand up. In 2006, the OECD concluded, after an exhaustive examination of research literature, 'The level of the minimum wage has no significant direct impact on unemployment,' and 'highly centralised wage bargaining significantly reduces unemployment'. Penalty rates are an absolute fundamental part of protecting the rights of workers, especially ensuring that workers receive fair compensation, as I said earlier, for giving up their weekends and public holidays to work.
Those that work on weekends and public holidays are usually low-income workers, part-time workers, students and, perhaps, part-time mums that top-up the family budget to ensure that they keep the bills paid and to make a little bit extra to get the kids some extra clothing or for that outing once a week or once a month. It is very important. To penalise these workers, who often earn lower than average wages and who are often on casual and precarious employment conditions, is a very low blow indeed.
This brings me to the other compelling argument for protecting penalty rates. It is morally correct, as I said earlier. I believe you can judge a country on the way it treats its most vulnerable, and kicking them when they are down has been the habit of this particular government. It is not a very nice way to treat anyone. I know that a country I want to live in is one that is fair and respects its workers. This is why I join my Labor colleagues on this side in calling on the government members and senators to stand up with us to protect low-paid workers, take-home pay and support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017. It is the only fair thing to do.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (17:13): I am certainly pleased to speak against this motion today. I have long advocated for the reduction of penalty rates, and I refuse to be a hypocrite like the Leader of the Opposition. Leichhardt is the electorate most highly dependent on tourism. It is responsible for 20 per cent of employment, and it is a seven-day-a-week industry. Tourists want to have a meal, go shopping and hit the nightclubs regardless of what—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Your reference to the opposition leader might be considered unparliamentary, and I ask you to withdraw it.
Mr ENTSCH: I withdraw. Tourists want to have a meal, go shopping and hit the nightclubs regardless of what day it is. A lot of people also choose to work on weekends, they might be university students or mums who can only work that day because dad is at home with the kids. Around Australia, the nine-to-five, Monday-to-Friday work week is becoming less and less relevant. The Fair Work Commission's proposed changes to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates, in my view, are long overdue.
Critically, the impact of these changes should not be overexaggerated, as Labor is intent on doing. They are only very minor changes and will apply to just 2.8 per cent of employed Australians. Rates will be reduced by either 25 or 50 percentage points, bearing in mind a casual hospitality worker receives double time and three-quarters on public holidays. With the changes, a casual pharmacy assistant who earns $38.88 an hour on a Sunday would now earn $34.02 and a full-time bartender earning $31.87 an hour would now earn $27.32. These are still good wages for an eight-hour shift on a Sunday. A casual shop assistant will earn more than $270 a day and $388 on a public holiday. Do not forget that, thanks to the union-sanctioned enterprise bargaining agreements, employees at fast-food chains and major hotels already earn less than the award. So they will not be affected. Staff who are paid higher than the award also will not be affected. This is common in my electorate, where the market dictates wages—so that, if you want a top-notch head chef, you pay accordingly.
The biggest impact is going to be on small businesses and mum and dad operators. If you own a cafe with six permanent staff working on a Sunday, you will save about $30 an hour, which is a full-time wage for one person. So you might decide to have a well-earned day off and pay an additional employee to cover that shift or you could put an extra worker on on a Saturday night so you can provide a better service. In light of the high rates of youth unemployment in my region, it might also mean that you can take on a trainee or an apprentice.
In Far North Queensland, the proposed benefits for a small business have been welcomed. Will Nevile, from Wharf One, told the Cairns Post recently:
It will certainly increase our ability to put on more people. In the current situation the consumer gets less amenity, staff get less work, the government gets less tax and businesses get less turnover. I fail to see a winner.
In its submission to the Fair Work Commission, Pillow Talk managing director Heath Goddard said that the store generally caps hours worked by any given employee on a Sunday to five hours. The Cairns store is one that would likely benefit from being able to provide more hours of work to existing staff or take on new staff. Dean Pollock, from the Discount Drug Store in Atherton, told the Fair Work Commission that he was considering ceasing his Sunday trading altogether as the wages were 'simply too expensive'.
Craig Squire, chef director of Ochre Restaurant and Catering, already pays his staff higher than the award rate. He says that their total wage bill as a percentage of turnover has increased by about four per cent in three years, and he is the only one who has not had a pay rise. This is an all too common scenario. While penalty rates on Sundays are 'higher than is ideal', Craig points out that the biggest impact came from the Fair Work Act 2009, which introduced penalty rates for Saturdays. And I did not see any objection about that decision! For a mixed restaurant and catering business, Saturday is the busiest day with the highest cost for wages. Interestingly, there has been a reduction in Saturday rates for the restaurant industry. About 18 months ago it went down from time and a half to time and a quarter. Where was the outrage from the unions then? I did not hear a word, not a whisper, from them.
I say that Fair Work's proposal is a step in the right direction. As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry states:
The modestly reduced Sunday rates still represent a decent wage, but one which is more affordable for small and family businesses.
And that is what this is all about. This is all about small family businesses being able to trade at a time that their customers want them to trade and to be able to do it by employing more people and actually having a break for themselves. So I certainly oppose this motion before us today.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (17:18): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Lyons which is before the House today. Recently I have spoken in the House about issues of generational unfairness which are increasingly impacting on young Australians. This government have continued to attack young Australians from all angles—letting housing affordability get out of control, watching the youth unemployment rates skyrocket and attempting to slash income support for those under 25 at the same time as the cost of living continues to rise. Their sustained attacks—and we have incurred more today—on penalty rates are just another stark example of their unfair attacks on young Australians.
As the member for Lyons' motion notes, the cut in penalty rates in the retail trade would disproportionately affect young people, with one-third of these workers aged between 15 and 24. Just today I met with Matt, a young man from my electorate who is down here campaigning and making people aware of how these decisions will affect him. He is a casual at Spotlight in Wollongong. He moved to Wollongong from Orange to study but was not able to get income support, so he has to work. Matt tells me that his wage barely covers his cost of living. Over half his wage goes in rental costs, and he will lose $70 for every Sunday that he works. That is a big hit on his take-home pay.
Young Australians are already dealing with a changing workforce. Like Matt, they are increasingly required to work irregular or unreliable hours. They are forced to take whatever they can get, no matter whether that is enough to support them for study or for their living costs. Many are just making ends meet. Costs of living continue to increase. Housing stress is a real issue. The cost of getting a good education through university or TAFE continues to rise and, in fact, under government policies we potentially see that increasing even further.
The government wants to know why young Australians are so disenfranchised from politics and are turning towards protest parties or donkey votes. This is why. These continued attacks and this clear lack of understanding of the challenges facing their generation are why. All this government can do is to tell young people to get a good job that pays good money, and then it takes action to slash the wages of the jobs that young people do have.
One of my constituents even told me he believed the government has a vendetta against his generation. Young people think Malcolm Turnbull is so unkind that he would deliberately try to make life harder for them. Who could blame them, when the Prime Minister continues to look to their support structures to prop up big business and investors, who are proposed to get generous corporate tax cuts? Instead of looking at the generous benefits extended to the top end of town, he looks at how he can gouge money from the bottom, from those already struggling under the weight of the mess that has been created. In my electorate, one in seven workers are facing a cut of up to $77 per week. That is more than 10,600 people who will be worse off because the government thinks their time with families is not valuable enough to earn them penalty rates.
Another one of my constituents shared with me her story from when her husband was working weekends just to make ends meet. For a young couple with a small child, the penalty rates he received for working every Sunday meant the difference in them being able to pay the bills and put food on the table. She said it saved them from having to turn to services such as the Salvation Army, and she rightly pointed out the pressure that will be put on these services when families such as theirs can no longer rely on their penalty rate income to pay the costs of living. This was not a choice they made because they did not care about time with their family on the weekend; it was something they were forced to do to survive, something they felt lucky to be able to rely on, and they were unsure what they would have done otherwise. For those who are already at risk, relying on penalty rates and paying the price of time away from their families is what helps them meet their weekly budget. To cut this from them is to attack their capacity to provide for their families.
I note that the member before was talking about the importance of small business. I reiterate and confirm my recognition of the importance of small business in my electorate, and I tell you what: a lot of their customers are the very people we are talking about, who are going to see their disposable income significantly cut from these decisions.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (17:23): As a former small business owner myself in the retail space, I can assure you governments do not create jobs; employers do. Our job as a government is to establish the right framework and environment to allow people to build their own lives and forge their own paths. As a matter of fact, in my regional, rural and remote electorate of Maranoa, an electorate encompassing more than 42 per cent of Queensland, many small shops, pharmacies, takeaways and hotels have simply found it too expensive to open on Sundays.
The Fair Work Commission is an independent arbitrator. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition himself set up the rules for the Fair Work Commission's inquiry and review into modern awards every four years, and he even appointed the independent umpire to make the decisions. This was not some fly-by-night inquiry either. In more than two years, the Fair Work Commission pored over more than 5,900 submissions and interviewed 143 witnesses to reach its position. It balanced the views between unions, employer organisations and many experts when it came to reviewing the modern awards for retail, hospitality, fast food and pharmacy. Of course, this decision only affects employees not covered by an enterprise bargaining agreement. The reality is that employers whose employees are covered by EBAs negotiated between unions and employer representatives have been benefitting from these EBAs, while small business has been slugged with higher wages.
It really does surprise me that the opposition leader refused to now accept the Fair Work Commission's pragmatism and common sense in deliberating over extensive sources evidenced—instead, seeking to play all sorts of games to contradict his previous commitments. True to form, the opposition leader has reneged on his promise to respect the decision. That is because it is politically convenient for him to do so. He lacks the courage and conviction. Sadly, like the ACTU's new secretary, Sally McManus, he thinks politically convenient subjectivity should be a key ingredient of good governance in this country. Forget democracy, forget the separation of powers on which our system of government relies. I think there would be complete and utter anarchy across this country if the goalposts were allowed to mean different things to different people.
Leaving aside the opposition leader's complete and utter hypocrisy, I will explain why this is a great thing for the people in my electorate—not only for the business owners but also for the employed and unemployed people living in regional and rural communities, in particular, who feel the effects of unemployment. The review of the penalty rates has, effectively, handed businesses the opportunity to extend their trading hours and bolster services to the local communities they support. For a lot of regional, rural and remote towns, Sunday looks like an old western ghost town. That is not to say that residents and travellers alike do not have a demand for the local cafe or pub on a Sunday. It is just that the burden of wages, coupled with unpredictable customer numbers, means that opening on a Sunday is a risk they need not take.
On this point I would like to home in on, specifically, tourism. Last year's Tourism Australia reports revealed the increasing number of tourists to my part of the world, outback Queensland. These tourist numbers comprised interstate and international tourists. Tourism has found a big economic pillar for Maranoa, through the drought, and I believe this decision will keep people coming to the country towns for years to come. If they have a newsagency, a cafe, local shops and a pub to stop at, they will get a real sense of our community spirit.
I call on the opposition to respect their promises and look toward the opportunities small business can provide one and all.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Small Business
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (17:27): I 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.
Ms FLINT: Salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, and farmers: these are the decent hardworking Australians Robert Menzies had in mind when he made his Forgotten People speech in 1942 and, shortly after, founded the modern Liberal Party in 1944. Owner-operators, family and small businesses are the powerhouse of Australia's economy and the Turnbull government has their best interests at heart.
Supporting small businesses helps grow the economy and benefits all Australians. There are 2.1 million small businesses in Australia. We are backing these small businesses because it is these businesses that create the jobs and opportunities hardworking Australians deserve and need. It is these businesses that keep our economy and our nation strong.
In Boothby we have 9,270 small businesses and they are experiencing the very real benefits of this government's policies. We have cut their taxes to the lowest level in 50 years and are stimulating economic growth. We have cut red and green tape to the tune of $5.8 billion because we know that unnecessary paperwork is a huge burden for small business. We have ensured there is a whole-of-government approach to reducing the reporting burden on business, simplifying BAS and embracing technology consistent with the government's digital transformation agenda. We are allowing businesses to reinvest in themselves and their workforce with a $20,000 instant asset write-off program that helps hardworking Australians build their businesses, and supports other local businesses that they buy from.
In terms of agriculture, I have one of the world's premier agricultural and viticultural research institutes in my electorate: Adelaide University's Waite Research Institute. I also come from a long line of family farmers, so I am very interested in how the Turnbull government is also supporting hardworking farmers. The agricultural white paper is a $4 billion investment in our farmers. It is helping them get better returns at the farm gate through free trade agreements, export deals, better regulation and an improved tax system. Our Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell AO, is giving small businesses a voice and specialised assistance. Through the Small Business Advisory Service and business.gov.au, we are giving small businesses and family enterprises a hand-up with low-cost advisory services, as well as information on starting, running and growing a business.
I extend my very sincere thanks to the Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Michael McCormack, who visited my electorate of Boothby in February with representatives from the ACCC and ATO and with Kate Carnell to speak with businesses directly. The minister's small business roadshows are a huge hit with local businesses that are enthusiastic about the opportunity to have their questions answered and their opinions heard. I am grateful to my hardworking business owners locally, like Ben and Marika at Mitcham Newsagency, Jeff at Banana Boys, Michael at the Hub Shoe Repairs, Troy at the Edge Deli, and Rose, George and Haefa at the Middle Store, for letting me know on a regular basis about the issues that are important to them and to their businesses.
Listening to our businesses has never been more important than right now in South Australia. The biggest issue at the roadshow and when I am out and about in the electorate is by far the affordability and reliability of power supply. With the highest power prices in Australia, many businesses are at risk of reducing their staff numbers, passing on higher costs to customers or, worse, closing. Businesses are investing in power-saving technology and generators. They are spending thousands upon thousands of dollars that they should be investing in growing their business or employing more staff, because state Labor cannot keep the power on and cannot keep the lights on.
The contrast between us and those opposite could not be more stark. While federally the coalition supports those who keep the economy going, Labor just makes doing business harder. While federally we have the lowest taxes in 50 years, in South Australia state Labor has us paying the highest taxes and charges in the nation. It is not just businesses that suffer under these conditions; my home state has the highest unemployment and underemployment in Australia. For our community, which is already struggling after 15 years of state Labor, each and every job loss is a blow that our economy cannot handle. While Premier Jay Weatherill pulls stunts on the national stage, people are hurting. There can be no better example of why we must support small businesses, and why we are, than what state Labor has done to our economy. I congratulate the Turnbull government on all that we are doing for small businesses and family businesses. I commend the motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr Coleman: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (17:33): I rise to respond to the motion put forward by the member for Boothby. This motion very accurately spells out the significance of small business in Australia. It is a shame that the member's speech did not reflect that accuracy. It reflects the importance of shopping locally and supporting local small business owners, and, in turn, their employees. In my electorate of Lindsay in Western Sydney, we are home to a large number of small businesses. Our community is characterised by hard work and determination, and our small business owners are a shining example of these qualities. We have brilliant cafes in our town centres that would rival even the most hipster cafes of Newtown, like Simon's cafe Screaming Beans on High Street, my smashed avo and feta destination of choice. We have tradies who get up each morning to build and repair our rapidly growing region, like Luke from Leonay Plumbing and Paul from PCB Services. We have high-quality local services that keep professional people in our region, like the newly opened One Point Health facility. This keeps local dollars in our region too. And we have hugely successful home businesses like Savvy Cakes and Bordeaux Candles that ultimately allow parents to spend more time with their families, and help working people with their work/life balance.
Now, we know that this is not exclusive to Lindsay, but it is replicated throughout Australia. As the motion rightly points out, there are 2.1 million small businesses across our country, and a large proportion of these small businesses are crucial to our economy and employment locally. I say a large proportion because 62.3 per cent of all small businesses are non-employing businesses, but the remaining 771,000 businesses employ around five million Australians, so it is crucial that we support small business as much as we can.
Of course, what we should not be doing—and Labor have made this clear all along—is dress up government subsidies for big business as some sort of hand up for small business. You do not help small business owners and employees by misappropriating billions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer money by giving it straight to the big four banks—and that is all we have heard from Liberals in this place and all around the country. Their business tax plan is woefully targeted, and the people of Australia know exactly what it is: a tax cut for this government's big business mates and donors at the expense of small business owners and those struggling to get by. It will add, for those obsessed by the debt and deficit, $4 billion in extra interest to our country's bottom line.
Last year Labor took an incredible package of small business policies to the election. These were sensible and practical measures to assist small business owners achieve justice in the marketplace and reduce unnecessary impediments to their ongoing success. We supported a small business tax cut which would have applied to 83 per cent of Australian companies—those that have an annual turnover of up to $2 million, which is rightly reflective of an actual small business. This measure would greatly assist small businesses in my community. In fact, it is a policy I have spoken to many business owners about, and it is well supported.
Another element to local small business success is, as the motion correctly points out, a shop local mentality that supports local business owners and their employees. In my electorate, we are well serviced by the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Penrith Business Alliance and the Nepean Business Network, all of whom build on the skills of our local business owners and promote local enterprise within our community. I have seen it observed on a small business shopfront that 'when you buy from small business, you're not helping a CEO buy a third holiday home. You're helping a little girl get dance lessons, a little boy get his team jersey, and helping parents put food on the table and pay a mortgage.'
I will always encourage local families to shop locally and support small business because I know how hardworking and dedicated small business owners. I also know how integral and connected each of them are within our community, with many of these giving back generously to local charity.
It is interesting to note that the member for Boothby has mentioned and praised the government's instant asset write-off in her motion. What she has neglected to mention is that it was the previous Labor government that first introduced this policy, and—hardly any surprises here—you guys, the Liberals, opposed and trash-talked its introduction. In fact, the former member for Dunkley, Bruce Billson, who was the shadow minister for small business before the 2013 election, and then the Minister for Small Business following that election, had completely contradictory things to say about this important policy before and after that time. Before the election, he said the policy was rubbish and proceeded to abolish it after coming to government. Of course, in what can only be described as a blinding reversal of ignorance and political opportunism, the policy was re-established and is now heralded as a success by those opposite, because they are obviously not clever enough to come up with their own policies. That can only be seen as an endorsement of Labor's sensible policies to assist small business. Their actions on this matter can only be seen as a reflection of their priorities: when it comes to small business, they would much rather play politics and rubbish Labor instead of getting on with the job and supporting small business owners.
One other thing that would greatly assist small business owners in my electorate is to ensure that working people in our area have enough money to shop there. Cutting $77 a week from the take-home pays of 700,000 Australians will do nothing for them. (Time expired)
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (17:38): Shop small: it is something that pretty much everyone supports in principle. We all support it, but why don't we do it more? Why don't more Australians do it? American Express commissioned research for its Shop Small campaign and found that nine out of 10 people say they feel disappointed—sad, even—when their small local businesses closed down. Most say that small businesses contribute to community identity. They feel guilt and regret for not shopping local. But, at times, we all shop at places like Westfield. We say we want to shop local and we want to shop small, and we do not need research to tell us that this aligns with what small business wants us to do.
Shop local is a somewhat fragmented grassroots movement that has failed to evolve into a meaningful or enduring form. It remains an ideal or aspiration. As consumers, we talk the talk on shopping locally, but we are just not putting our money where our mouth is. While nine out of 10 people feel disappointed when local businesses close down, 94 per cent admit to forgetting to shop small. The reality, clearly, is that they are not top of mind.
The coalition government is committed to small business and to ensuring that businesses are able to compete in a way that elevates the idea of shopping local to more than just an ideal. Our multi-pronged plan will support their success and includes a number of important elements—elements that I know, having run a small business, will streamline procedure, increase efficiency, relieve unnecessary burden and enable small business to get on with the job. The first step in change is often to listen, so I welcome the small-business roadshows currently underway—and I note that the member for Boothby mentioned that the roadshow came to her electorate. Canvassing input and exchanging ideas, the roadshows are linking small business directly with the ACCC, the ombudsman and the ATO as well as the Minister for Small Business. Providing valuable feedback and constructive in nature, they have the added benefit of putting a friendly face to the taxman. One thing we hear time and time again is the burden that compliance can bring. Efficiency is not helped by unnecessary overadministration. Regulation is one thing, but excessive red tape is another. The simplification of the business activity statement and the introduction of the SuperStream payments are great examples of sensible, practical efficiencies that are helping businesses to work smarter. The instant asset tax write-off, which the member opposite just spoke about, is an absolutely fantastic initiative for businesses turning over up to $10 million. What we want to see is those opposite supporting those businesses in their electorates—because I believe that is where the biggest growth will be. This measure will help jobs and sales. It will be really beneficial to electorates right across the country. We know that in countries like the US the instant asset tax write-off is unlimited. It is available to businesses turning over $1 billion and more. So supporting it for businesses turning over up to $10 million would be a great initiative and a way to help workers locally.
If we want to encourage Shop Small, we need to apply new methods. Supporting small local businesses by freeing up time empowers their quest for success. Every moment is vital. I welcome the impact of the Fair Work Commission decision for its capacity to assist Shop Small. In an age when convenience is king, being able to afford to open your doors longer puts you in touch with the key market driver. Boosting support, information and the ability to compete on convenience helps businesses to grow from within. This, in turn, pays dividends for both small businesses and the surrounding community. Rather than transplanting success from outside, which invariably brings discernible change, facilitating sustainable, locally grown businesses enhances a region's identity.
The Enterprise Tax Plan is a vital cog in the wheel of the good health of small business and yields exponential advantage. One thing the Leader of the Opposition and I agree on is, as Bill Shorten has said in the past:
… corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder.
I could not have said it better myself, but he has done a backflip on that, as has every other member opposite. We have cut the small-business tax rate to the lowest level it has been in 50 years and we will continue to support small business.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (17:43): On first glancing at this motion, I would expect that not one member of parliament representing their local electorate, just like I am, would disagree about shopping local. Absolutely—nobody would not agree that we should shop local. But that is where my agreement with this motion will end. In my role standing up for the people of my electorate of Longman, I cannot completely agree with this motion because I completely disagree with the member for Boothby and her government's illogical, ill-conceived so-called support for local businesses. Maybe it is just because I have not had big-business donors or lobbyists whispering in my ear that I find it really hard to believe that $50 billion in tax cuts will help any of the local businesses in my electorate. Maybe it is because I do not accept or believe that showering corporates with money is how you strengthen local businesses. I accept and I support real support that comes from developing quality, reliable and worthwhile infrastructure that supports businesses and start-ups.
Nearly every week, I hear from a different small business in my electorate of Longman that has had enough of this government's horrible mistreatment of communications infrastructure. Just last week—and you will be keen to hear this, Member for Boothby—I spent time consulting with local businesses in my community, and we talked about the NBN and cellular phone coverage. Each and every one of those businesses said to me that they feel like this government has thrown them under a bus. You can give Cathie a call, if you like. She owns Real Food Snacks. She is a great local woman. She was one of those business owners. She told me that she had apparently been upgraded to the NBN, but her internet is cripplingly slow. How can she be expected to compete, when it takes days to upload just 10 image files? What alternative does she have since the switch to the NBN? She does not have a fax line because the NBN cut out her fax line. Can you believe that? It cut out her fax line. But surely she could ring people on her mobile phone? If it were not for the horrible black spots in the area, she could probably do that. But guess what. She cannot. It is 2017. Despite that, she cannot fax, she cannot call on her mobile and she does not have a reliable NBN.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Order! I do not mind interjections, but let's not let them get to a level where I cannot hear the speaker.
Ms LAMB: I was just about to note that the Prime Minister and the previous member for Longman both promised that every home in Longman would be connected by 2016. It is 2017. I will just put on the record that it is a little bit late. It really is impossible for small businesses in Longman to compete when they are forced to rely upon things like smoke signals and telegrams because we have no NBN and no mobile phone coverage that is reliable.
Where I will agree is that it would be great if Australians shopped local. I absolutely agree with that. It would be great if, in the words of Ms Flint, Australians 'think local first with every dollar they spend'. Actually, let me rephrase that. It would be great if Australians could think local first with every dollar they spend. Instead, hardworking Australians are thinking, 'Can I afford to feed my family this week? Can I afford the bus or the train ticket? Can I afford to pay my bills?' Erin is a local worker who is getting by financially, just. She is helping to raise her two sisters while she works and studies full time. She is concerned that she will not be able to cope for very long, because she works in retail and is about to get a penalty rate cut. It is a bit sad. I do not know why you are smiling, because she works in retail and is about to get a penalty rate cut. When you are barely scraping by and you are about to lose $70 from your take-home pay each week, it is the local businesses that will miss out—cafes, restaurants, newsagents and tradies. Who is going to ask for a new kitchen or a garden shed from their tradie if their penalty rates have just been cut? The member for Boothby moved this motion today, but I believe the most effective way to support small businesses is to make sure they get the quality infrastructure they need and to protect their penalty rates.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member for Fisher, I note that his hairstyle is both high speed and very becoming!
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (17:48): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker! I have spent most of my adult life operating my own small businesses, unlike those opposite. It is not always a comfortable life, but it is a choice made by millions of Australians and one upon which Australia relies. Small businesses employ 45 per cent of workers in this country. We all know how important that growing contribution is going to be as the economy changes. The motion lists four fantastic initiatives that the government has undertaken to encourage and support small businesses—four out of many. It does not even begin to mention the billions of dollars a year we have saved companies by cuts to unnecessary red tape, the government's moves to cut tax for the country's thousands of unincorporated small businesses or the millions of dollars that the government has invested to support small farming businesses. I hope that other members will elaborate on these and other commendable actions.
I want to talk about two specific initiatives. The first of these is something that residents of my electorate would have heard me talking about for some time—that is, we must make it easier for small businesses to do business with the federal government. As we have heard, the small business minister has challenged us to think locally first. The government has certainly taken this challenge on board. We have created a standard suite of simplified contract and tender documents for Commonwealth procurement, and made credit and debit cards the government's preferred payment method for purchases under $10,000. In the last budget, the Treasurer also announced that we would explore electronic invoicing.
These measures make it easier for local Australian small businesses to win Commonwealth contracts. Already we are seeing 34 per cent of the government's procured goods and services supplied by 23,400 small businesses. The Turnbull government shops locally where it can. These are important initiatives, but there is much more to be done in this space.
My first small business was in the construction sector. There are more than 300,000 small businesses in that sector who have recently had their chances of a bright future substantially improved by the Turnbull government's reintroduction of the ABCC. Since Labor abolished the ABCC, the CFMEU have become experts in wasting time and bullyboy tactics. The knock-on effects on the mum-and-dad contractors of these go-slow shenanigans can be disastrous. For them, with tight margins and insecure cash flow, it too often means that their business has had to fold. The ABCC will stamp out this corruption and lawlessness, and give small businesses a fighting chance.
Without the ABCC, unions have also been forcing contractors to use union-preferred suppliers, generally a euphemism for expensive, heavily-unionised friends of the union bosses. The act introduces a new building code to protect smaller subcontractors from these unfair practices. In the future, if you want to get a contract to do building work on behalf of the federal government, you will have to ensure that your business complies with the building code, and this will result in small businesses getting a fair go.
All of these changes will make a big difference but, in some ways, the most important is yet to some. Taxes are a significantly bigger problem for small businesses than they are for larger enterprises. When your turnover is modest and every dollar is precious, handing over 28½ per cent of your profits to the taxman does not leave you a great deal to reinvest in your company.
The Turnbull government's enterprise tax plan is currently before the House. If passed, it will deliver millions in savings to small businesses in this country. In many cases, these reductions in tax rates will be enough to allow small businesses to take on another full-time member of staff. For others, it will provide the capital to invest in new equipment or cost-saving technology to double down on those gains for the future. In my electorate and all over Australia, people are crying out for more of these growing innovative and successful businesses.
When demographer Bernard Salt was in my electorate recently, he described the Sunshine Coast as the entrepreneurial capital of the nation, and he is right. This government is doing all it can to encourage small business, and this motion is right to call on the people of Australia to join in with their purchasing decisions—that is, to buy locally. But members opposite should also remember this motion and do their bit by voting for the government's enterprise tax plan.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (17:53): I welcome this motion and would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the value of small business in my electorate of Braddon in north-west Tasmania. There are over 6,000 small businesses in my electorate and, to support those small businesses, we have a number of business groups: the Burnie chamber of commerce; the Central Coast chamber of commerce; the Devonport chamber of commerce; the Circular Head Progress Group; the Circular Head Business Group; Queenstown Business Group; Building Somerset's Future; and Citylink Burnie.
All of these groups in different ways support local small businesses with annual awards, promotions, forums and other events—many of which I have attended in my time as an elected member and prior to that. For example, the Circular Head Progress Group and the Circular Head Business Group have combined to create shopping dollars, a scheme whereby the local community can purchase generic vouchers to be redeemed in local businesses. Tania Brown from the Circular Head Business Group was quoted as saying at the launch of the voucher schemes:
"I just think everyone should shop locally, businesses put a lot back into the community.
"If people want their kids to have a job here, they need to shop here. It creates employment."
How true is that? The City Link of Burnie has the ethos 'live, play, shop local' and has a number of promotional activities to support this ethos. The highlight of City Link is their annual awards function, which is always a really enjoyable night for everyone in attendance. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the 2016 City Link award winners: Evanthia Hairdressing, Glow Cosmetics, Health Care Insurance, Palate Food and Drink, The Hidden Fox and B&E Personal Banking. Small businesses in my electorate are doing their part, and government has a role to play in supporting the sector. Labor took to the election a number of policies to support small businesses: plans to help small business access finance, a plan to help small business incorporate, plans to lower the small business company tax rate, plans for new jobs tax cuts and so many other policies that I just do not have time to mention.
The member for Boothby gives her government a pat on the back for levelling the playing field for small businesses online through changes to the GST, which is welcomed, but real issues remain. In my electorate there is a businessman called David Smith from Trooper IT Services. He is filling a gap in the local market, helping people with their IT needs, mobile phone repairs and so forth. But he is competing against the online world, particularly eBay, and he is continuing to encounter problems which just do not seem to get addressed. Sellers on eBay are in breach of eBay policy regarding counterfeit products, seller locations that are not really in Australia and satisfying any ATO obligations, which they do not. I have facilitated David and eBay to work together to resolve these issues in this sector, but government needs to play more of a role in ensuring online sellers meet their legal and ethical requirements. Kirk Pinner from Outside The Square Solutions consistently raises with me the fact that not one local small business in Tasmania has a federal government contract to deliver employment services, yet small businesses like Kirk's know and understand their community much, much more than any interstate multinational.
The member for Boothby also talks about country-of-origin labelling and its role in supporting small business, which is something that I support. Much progress has been made, but it is still an issue that remains in the seafood services sector. Labor has given its bipartisan support to a working group led by the honourable Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, who is leading consultations with the sector. The Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association has been included as part of the industry consultations. However, it appears the state's principal group, the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council, has been omitted. I have written to the honourable minister to ensure all of Tasmania's key seafood industry groups are given the opportunity to have their say, both aquaculture and wild caught. A large number of participants in Tasmania's wild fisheries are small family business operations, so it is important that they have a voice at the table. They are the backbone of so many regional economies in my state. I hope the minister takes on board my request for TSIC to be included.
Small businesses across so many sectors underpin the Tasmanian economy. Government must continually look at ways to grow and support this vital sector.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (17:59): Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, I have to say that you do look like you need some hydration at the moment—perhaps a wonderful beer like Coopers from a local small business in some other person's electorate might be appropriate on the occasion. But, of course, South Australian small business, which I concede is not my area of expertise, is very well served by the member for Boothby, and I am happy to give her that title. In fact, I congratulate her on bringing this motion on small business to the Federation Chamber, because, when it comes down to it, if you want not just a champion but also a partner who is reliable and predictable you cannot go beyond the member for Boothby, and we congratulate her so much on her enduring success.
But I do want to start by correcting my good friend the member for Fisher, who started his speech with an error—with all due respect to the member for Fisher—and it was that his electorate was the entrepreneur's capital of Australia. That is not true! The entrepreneurial capital of Australia is the wonderful electorate of Goldstein—full of so many people: hardworking Australians who take risks, invest capital and put their energies and their minds into building the future of this nation. If any members, the members here from Victoria, dare scoff at the idea that Victorians could lead this nation—what a disgrace that is to scoff at such an idea!—they are always welcome to go down to the Bayside Business Network in the wonderful electorate of Goldstein and see the hub, the genesis and the energy that comes out of the ideas and entrepreneurialism at the heart of the Goldstein electorate, that I am so proud to represent.
When you consider the economic challenges before us today, it is hard to think of a motion more important to support than this, because within every robust economy small businesses play a vital role in both job creation and creating economic growth. That is what we as Liberals are so passionate about. We need to ensure that Australian entrepreneurialism and small businesses have every bit of backing possible in the current difficult global economic environment. We need to back our businesses to grow and create the opportunities and jobs that we want in this country.
Small business has been central to the coalition government's agenda right from the start. We understand that when small business succeeds, not only do the employers succeed but their employees succeed, and so does this great country. It goes to the heart of who we are as Liberals. We understand that individuals who are entrepreneurial in their behaviour go on to employ people, grow companies and build this nation's future. The government's Enterprise Tax Plan begins with small business for good reasons: because there are 2.1 million small businesses across this great continent and their five million employees deserve the chance to thrive in an increasingly global competitive marketplace. Reducing their tax burden is essential, particularly if we want to make sure we can continue to attract investment into this country to build its future.
Our approach is evidence based—in marked contrast to the shamefully political row the opposition has taken on tax policy, where they like some things when they are in opposition or when they are government, depending on which way the wind blows and where they think they can get a few votes. The worst of that is of course from the opposition leader himself and the shadow Treasurer, who have consistently backed the idea of cutting company taxes up until the point they seek advantage—or, more to the point, that they are prepared to score political points off the back of hardworking small businessmen and women, who want to build businesses to employ people in Australia.
We are the only party left today actually talking about job growth. We are the only party today who actually want to see more Australians employed—that is actually our focus in how we deliver—particularly to cut youth unemployment, to give opportunities to younger Australian so that they can get a foothold in the market and get a job, and then go on to build the environment for security, to buy their own homes, to create a family and to build this nation.
I have to say that the $20,000 instant asset write-off has been an enormous advantage. A high-tax environment means businesses have more difficulty attracting funding and capital. It makes it harder for them to invest in equipment, technology, machinery and—most importantly of all—in their employees. Declining real wages in Australia is concerning and if we want businesses to back their employees, as well as give more people job opportunities, then we have to remain competitive globally. The OECD average corporate tax rate is 25 per cent, while ours is stuck at 30 per cent. It would be nice to join the opposition and pretend that the Australian enterprising community does not have global competition; but we operate in reality, where of course they do. That is why we have to stand tall and we have to stand proud, not just in cutting taxes but also in making sure we give the philosophical commitment, the enduring commitment, to Australia's small business community.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (18:04): Thriving and growing small businesses are vital for regions like mine. In Macquarie, we have more than 10,000 small businesses—many in construction, many are producers, many are professional services, many are manufacturers and many work in retail. There are also many more self-employed people working from home and potentially growing into a business, especially if they are well-supported by government policy. Let's remember my electorate of Macquarie is on Sydney's fringe, so we battle to have enough local jobs to keep people on our mountains or in our lowlands, sparing them the two-hour, on average, each-way commute into the city.
I have to say that I am sick and tired of hearing people like the member for Fisher or the member for Goldstein thinking that they have some arrogant birthright to run a small business. Let's get clear: there are plenty of people on our side who have spent many years in small business, and I am one of them. I grew up in small business as the daughter of a newsagent. I have had my own businesses for up to 30 years, bar the eight months I worked for somebody—a pregnancy—when I came back from I overseas. I was a PAYG earner for eight months of the last 30 years. So it is not an abstract exercise for me. I absolutely get what we need to do and I support the premise that the sector is vital. In fact, it is vital in my electorate.
Regarding the motion by the member for Boothby, some of it puzzles me. She seems to think that the government's job in helping small business is done. Let's take a look. There is a plan to cut taxes for Australian small businesses. That is not law yet. We support a cut for small business, but we do not agree with the view that it should be extended to the biggest multinationals on this globe. She also talked about backing small business with access to an instant asset write-off program, and, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, that was actually our idea. It is a good idea, and it certainly helps business invest fast in things. She talked about levelling the playing field for small businesses online. That is something else that has not yet been passed. To think that the job is done is so short of the mark—that all you have to do now is shop local and small business is somehow fixed. We need a whole lot more than that. That is a lovely thing to do, and I, for one, did all my Christmas shopping locally. But there is much more that governments can do, and I think there are also things governments should not do. Penalty rate cuts is one of those.
I have looked at the impact in my electorate of the cut in penalty rates. You would take $77 a week out of the pay packet of people who would normally spend it locally. That adds up to a lot of money coming out of my local community. Let's look at what we should not do. We should not be cutting penalty rates. What would be great for the businesses in my region is to do something about rents. They can manage their staff based on demand, but they cannot do anything about their overheads, so their rent is their biggest problem.
There are things that we know could be put in place by this government. One is that they could help small business access finance. We are, I think, the only OECD country with no small-business loan guarantee. You have to mortgage or sell your house—my dad had to sell his house to go into business in the seventies—and put your family at risk. That is something that women, in particular, are often reluctant to do. My business partner and I made a choice to grow organically. We did that over many years, but we would have grown a lot faster if we had been able to access a guaranteed small-business loan.
Another thing governments can do is help small business incorporate. My business was incorporated 25 years ago. It gives you asset protection, it helps you retain profits for working capital, it gives you access, if you need it, to capital gains tax discounts where they apply, it gives you succession planning and it allows for income distribution. All those things are missed out on by sole traders, and there are so many who look at the structure and say, 'It's just too hard to become incorporated.'
Another thing this government can do is get NBN right, because my local businesses tell me that, when you have the mishmash of NBN that the electorate of Macquarie is getting—FTTP, FTTC, FTTN, wireless, satellite—those sorts of things are plaguing small business. FTTN is causing outages, slow speeds, connection problems and shocking service. We need to fix those. The best thing this government can do is get its act together on NBN and then they can just let self-employed people get on with it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Citizenship Applications
Mr HILL (Bruce) (18:09): I 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.
This motion regarding the growing and unacceptable delays in processing citizenship applications has been moved because it is an enormous issue in my electorate. There are many cases. Since I was elected I have heard from new people every week and, indeed, some weeks, every single day. Bruce is a very multicultural area, with people from everywhere, and I firmly believe that we as MPs have a responsibility to represent everyone in our community—not just the voters, not just the people on the electoral roll, but also young people and permanent residents who are part of the community.
I have written numerous letters to the minister on this issue and have received unsatisfactory responses with no explanation. So in recent months I have spoken to colleagues and I have realised that what I was seeing locally is just the tip of the iceberg with what we are seeing across Australia. Finally, in December 2016, the Federal Court of Australia exposed the scale of this issue: over 10,000 complex cases with no clear rationale for the delays, and they admitted that there were only 12 people in the department who had been trained to assess these cases. This motion calls on the government to apologise, to clear the backlog and to fix the mess.
Australian citizenship is precious. Formal membership of the Australian community brings rights and obligations and the whole community must have full confidence in how cases are considered and how citizenship is granted. Central to this is the concept of integrity: integrity in applying the law—Australia has a rule of law, and the government is not above it; integrity in who gets citizenship; and integrity in administration. The process must be effective, efficient and free from politics. What we are seeing fails these tests. But it is not just an administrative issue; it is also a human issue. These are not just 10,000 cases; every single case is a person with a human story and a family. Distraught, upset and frustrated people flood my office because nothing has happened with their application for months or years and years and years. I see the pain of grown men at my front counter and in my office sobbing, breaking down and telling me about their suicide counselling and the mental health impacts of knowing that they cannot visit their dying parents and cannot see their families that they have been separated from for five, six, seven, eight or more years—and we have DIBP: 'Don't call us, we'll call you,' with no answers and no time lines.
Across the country a pattern seems to have emerged of certain classes of people being targeted, such as those on protection visas. The Liberal government denies that there is a deliberate policy, but the evidence indicates that there is a systemic problem. These are not isolated cases. This is consistent with this minister's pattern of seeking more power now through the visa revalidation bill to attack certain classes of people. Instead of the minister polishing his head in his office and counting the numbers for the leadership, he should do his job with his department and process these cases.
Ensuring new migrants settle here in our society—on which we have a proud record—is critical, but stalling their citizenship application for years, for people who live here and work and pay taxes, is unbearably cruel. They cannot move on with their lives. I have spoken before about the public meeting that I held in my electorate with the member for Isaacs, where we had over 400 people who had the courage to speak up in a public forum about their cases. They are not just workers; we have also heard from students who cannot complete their degrees because they cannot get a passport to travel overseas to do the international units—for example, masters students studying civil engineering. There is no explanation and no care from the minister or the department.
As with the Federal Court case, what the law says is that if someone meets the requirements to have citizenship conferred then they should be processed. The requirements in the act are quite simple and they are quite clear. It does not matter where people are from or how they arrived here; the minister must follow the law. Of course some cases are difficult because of identification. Of course some cases are difficult if there are national security issues. That is not at issue. But those things alone do not explain the delays that we are seeing.
Until last week, the general target had been 80 per cent in 80 days. Mysteriously, the minister changed the standards with the department last week, and he is now saying that, from 14 March, it will be 75 per cent in 10 months and 90 per cent in 12 months. He just slipped that one on the website. That does not help the thousands of cases that have been sitting in the bottom drawer for two or three years. The Federal Court case that I referred to is very clear. There is no time line in the act, but the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act applies, and ministers cannot unreasonably delay decisions. The evidence in the court case suggests that 'something beyond the resourcing or the restructuring of the citizenship program caused these significant delays.' It is not acceptable that two people went to court and got priority. Everyone should be confident that they are assessed fairly in a fair queue, and I quote from the court:
The fact that an applicant who institutes court proceedings is given priority suggests an arbitrariness which does not engender confidence that a reasonable allocation mechanism was being applied.
The government should fix this—or Labor, when we form government, will.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Owens: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (18:15): I am enormously proud to be an Australian. There is nothing Australians cannot do, and our opportunities are only limited by our imagination. Our country brings together the best elements from around the world. We have built a nation where Australians, no matter where they were born, can strive, succeed and provide a future for their families. As Noel Pearson has observed, Australia is a country with 'an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation and a multicultural character.' Carved out of the harsh Australian environment, together we have built the most successful multicultural nation on earth. This is a massive achievement, and one that is rightly celebrated as a centrepiece of our nation.
More than one in four Australians are born overseas. Migrants have made a huge contribution to this country, one which we rightly take pride in celebrating. It is a remarkable step to take to live your life in a new country. I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Minister for Social Services, the assistant minister for human services and the chairman of Australian Multicultural Council, Dr Sev Ozdowski AM, on today's launch of Australia's multicultural statement, an important statement of the shared values and understanding that bind Australians together.
I hold very strong views on the value of Australian citizenship. When you undertake the process of obtaining citizenship you are doing an enormously serious thing. You pledge yourself and give your word—many before God—to a new country and a new home. We should never take giving a pledge or an oath lightly. New citizens commit an act of dedication to this country in peacetime in the most solemn way we can.
Some of those who come to our shores have seen horrendous things in other parts of the world and understand, more than most, the beauty of our freedom. By becoming citizens they are committing themselves to Australia's core values—values of respect for the law, for individual freedom and for the Australian way of life, the values of hard work and a fair go, the values of parliamentary democracy, freedom of thought, speech, association and religion. We do not ask that new citizens renounce their heritage, but we have every right to demand that they believe in Australian values and the Australian way of life.
In 1949, during the first year of the Nationality and Citizenship Act, Australian citizenship was granted to 2,493 people of more than 35 different nationalities. Since then more than five million people have become Australian citizens. Australia's citizenship legislation has been amended over 30 times. Important changes were introduced by John Howard, who tightened national security measures and increased the requirement that applicants be residents from two years to four, including 12 months of permanent residency immediately preceding their application.
John Howard also introduced requirements for applicants to have adequate knowledge of our country and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship, encouraging successful integration into our society. The citizenship test also ensures applicants have a basic knowledge of the English language. With more than half a million Australian residents unable to speak English, this is critical to ensuring new citizens can play an active role in Australian society and take full advantage of the opportunities Australia has to offer.
The Rudd government altered the Australian citizenship test by focusing questions on knowledge relevant to the pledge of commitment rather than on broader general knowledge of Australian history and culture. I think new citizens should not only know the nature of the pledge they are making; they should know something of our history and culture too.
But our broader challenge is not testing a series of facts but testing the cast of mind and the commitment to Australian values of new citizens. Australian citizenship is a privilege and should be treated accordingly. It should be reserved for migrants wanting to be full and active participants in our society. Applicants for citizenship must therefore be more knowledgeable about Australia than many of us who were born here.
So how do we properly test that individuals have understood our culture and are committed to it? How can we best equip people with the knowledge and skills to make the best opportunity that Australian citizenship presents? Australia needs more people who appreciate and want to preserve our democratic freedoms and who strive to create opportunities for their family, their community and our broader nation. We should focus on people's ability to integrate into Australian society, to learn English, to educate their children and to seek employment opportunities to prevent welfare dependence.
An ideal citizenship application could cover applicants' links to the community, work history, community service and a commitment to fundamental Australian democratic values. It could require references to be provided by existing Australian citizens with whom they have engaged through work, sport, volunteering or community activities. All these ideas deserve further consideration. None of this is meant to be a discouragement, but nothing in life that is worthwhile comes easy. We want people to love our country, to be loyal, to contribute to it and to make it a better place, and our citizenship requirements should reflect this.
Sir Robert Menzies remarked at the opening of the Citizenship Convention in 1958:
We’re doing far more than receiving people from other countries. We’re doing far more than finding them employment ... We are in this way—and never let us forget it—building a nation.
This is the greatest exercise in nation-building for Australia this century has seen. We should heed Menzies' words and retain Australian citizenship as the prize that it is.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (18:20): Article 34 of the Refugee Convention states:
The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of—
refugees—
They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.
According to its recently updated website—updated since the Federal Court determined, as early as last week, that delays in citizenship processing were unreasonable—the Department of Immigration and Border Protection claims to process the majority of citizenship applications within 10 to 12 months. However, according to a report by the Refugee Council of Australia that involved interviews and surveys of 188 people, the average waiting time is not 10 to 12 months or 80 days, as previously stated; it is 215 days for those who have completed their the citizenship test and 357 days from the time of their application. The three longest waiting times have been 603, 623 and 682 days.
The evidence collected in this report suggests that the delays are disproportionately affecting those who arrived in Australia by boat and it also suggests that the large majority of people experiencing citizenship delays arrived from Afghanistan. Importantly, these delays appear to have commenced after September 2013—that is, since this government has taken office. Also important to note is that all the applicants who have or are experiencing delays have already passed rigorous security assessments by ASIO and have already established their identity and claims to refugee status. One would presume that ASIO knows its stuff and that their assessments can and should be relied upon. One would also presume that, given such rigorous assessments have already been made, there would be no need to duplicate the process, no need to waste time and resources and no need to further complicate the bureaucratic process.
We are talking here about people who are already living in the community and already contributing in many ways to our Australian society. Since I was elected, I have been contacted or visited by several community members—not all in my electorate, I might add—who have come to me in absolute desperation about their ongoing citizenship delays. Without exception, every single one of the people who have approached me is gainfully employed, has lived within and amongst the community peacefully and has satisfactorily completed every step of the immigration process—every single one.
One of these is the case of 'A' who lodged his application in March 2015, four years after he was granted an onshore protection visa. He was called for a citizenship interview in July 2016, but it was cancelled and rescheduled for a later date. The interview was more like an interrogation, where 'A' felt that he was being treated like a criminal. I reiterate that this is despite having already passed rigorous tests and checks on his identity in order to be granted his refugee status. The interview lasted for three hours, during which time he was extensively questioned and had comments made to him by officers that he would be deported or imprisoned if his verbal story did not check out with his original documents already submitted nearly a year ago. I might add that never at any time leading up to the interview was he informed that the interview would be a further check of his identity. The Refugee Council has also heard from lawyers and migration agents saying that a few people have had their permanent refugee visas cancelled and subsequently have been redetained after completing an application for citizenship and attending an identity interview. In another case in my electorate, 'R', another person who arrived as an unauthorised maritime arrival, applied for the citizenship in January 2015 and his application still remains undetermined.
Since the abolition of the White Australia policy, both Labor and Liberal governments have maintained a bipartisan policy of non-discriminatory immigration, and that is something which we as Australians should all be proud of. But we have seen this Minister for Immigration attempt to bring in a visa revalidation bill that would have given him the power to require revalidation checks of whole groups of people under a certain visa class, beyond the proposed ten-year visa. This government keeps going. It keeps trying to undermine our non-discriminatory immigration system in underhanded ways. It keeps trying to introduce ways to implement policies and procedures that effectively discriminate. (Time expired)
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (18:25): It is indeed a great pleasure to be able to stand and speak to this motion, because it gives me the opportunity to defend the right and it allows me to advocate for our departmental people and to say what a fantastic job I believe are doing in this space. They should be rewarded and complimented for the work that they do. I take objection to the blithe disregard shown by members on the other side for the amount of time it has taken to process applications—hopefully not casting any slurs on the departmental people for the way that they are assessing applications. They do an enormous task for our community—
Mr Hill interjecting—
Mr BUCHHOLZ: And I would remind the good member that I sat very patiently and listened to your opening remarks, even when you showed contempt for the House and cast a personal slur on the minister. I sat and listened. I do not expect the same level of respect from the other side, but I just note that I showed you a level of respect in this place.
Australian citizenship is the highest privilege that we can bestow upon eligible Australians. In my own electorate, going to citizenship ceremonies is one of the highlights of my year. They are incredibly emotional journeys. Can I tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my electorate is not as mixed as some of the more metropolitan areas, but we have Scottish and Irish and Germans and, for those new citizens that have come to this place, I suggest that they protect the Australian values far more aggressively than others, and they are far more protective of the rights and privileges of new Australians seeking to live here. They are very protective. Given that they have gone through the front door, they are protective of that front-door measure.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection assesses each citizenship application individually and on its merits, ensuring that Australian citizenship will only be conferred on people who fully satisfy the provisions under the Australian Citizenship Act under which the departmental people make their assessment. They make their assessment based on the act. So don't come in and attack the minister, don't come in and attack—indirectly—the departmental people; put amendments to the act. All applicants must meet a range of legislative criteria under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 including satisfying the residence requirements, passing the Australian citizenship test, having basic English, being of good character, maintaining residence or a close and continuing association with Australia, and safely identifying the provisions. I do not think anyone in this House takes umbrage at that set of criteria. So when the departmental people then make an assessment against that criteria, we should not be suggesting that one group of personnel are being shown favouritism over another group.
The department has received a sustained increase in the number of applications for Australian citizenship, including a significant increase in applications from humanitarian entrants, including former illegal maritime arrivals who arrived under the previous Labor government. The department assesses each citizenship application individually and on its own merits. All applications for Australian citizenship to be conferred must meet the legislative criteria, regardless of how or when the person arrived in Australia. The departmental staff act with the utmost professionalism in these cases, and they should not be held in blithe disregard by those opposite. There is no separate process regarding citizenship applications for IMAs. Applicants who present limited identification information or who have inconsistent or altered identity information may undergo more extensive checking if necessary, irrespective of how they arrived here.
This government has moved very proactively and has acted to ensure that those dual nationals who betrayed their allegiance to Australia by engaging in terrorist related activities lose their privilege of Australian citizenship. This government believes there should be a high standard for those seeking to be Australian citizens. Australian citizenship carries with it a great privilege and it should be respected by all Australians.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (18:30): Melbourne's southeast has welcomed many new communities over the past century. Large communities of Cambodian Australians, Vietnamese Australians and Indian Australians—to name just a few—have made Melbourne's southeast their home and have made vast contributions to the great multicultural fabric that makes up greater Melbourne.
More recent arrivals include the Sudanese Australian community and the Hazara Afghan community, which are emerging in Melbourne's southeast and, in particular, in the City of Greater Dandenong. The Dandenong market is one of the hidden gems of Melbourne, with food, shops and entertainment from countless cultures there for the community to enjoy. This market with its Afghan bazaar and Vietnamese, Mauritian, Indian and Sri Lankan food stalls, to name just a few, symbolises the opportunity that Australia offers and the multicultural melting pot that makes our country great.
New communities face many challenges and do not need additional challenges caused by failings in the government's immigration system. I recently joined the member for Bruce, Julian Hill, at a community meeting in Dandenong South, in my electorate, where around 400 residents—mostly of Hazara background, shared their concerns about the farcically long delays in the processing of citizenship applications for people on protection visas.
Some of the stories I heard were shocking, with some applicants waiting years for their applications to be decided. One man told the meeting how he has lived in Australia since 2010 and, having satisfied the residency requirements, applied for citizenship in July 2014. He is still waiting, on a decision from the minister for immigration, nearly three years on. Another man, who has not seen his wife and children for over five years, spoke of his desire to become an Australian citizen and to work to make Australia an even better place. It has been nearly two years since he applied for citizenship, without his application having been process. This kind of delay is unacceptable.
On 16 December 2016 the Federal Court of Australia found, in the case of BMF16 and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, that delays by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in the processing of citizenship applications by two men on protection visas were unreasonable. The two men had been waiting, respectively, for 18 and 23 months from the date of their applications. It came to light in the Federal Court proceeding that there were only 12 departmental staff responsible for processing over 10,000 citizenship applications that had been assessed as requiring further assessment. With such an obvious need for staff in this division of the department of immigration, the only explanation for such a delay would be a deliberate draining of resources from the division that processes citizenship applications from people on protection visas.
People who aspire to the great privilege of Australian citizenship and who have qualified to apply for citizenship should be treated with respect. By ignoring and delaying citizenship applications by people on protection visas, the Turnbull government is failing tests of fairness and lawfulness. These targeted delays are, frankly, unAustralian. That is why I wrote to the minister for immigration on 28 February this year, to highlight the concerns raised by residents in my electorate about those significant delays. I told him that these delays were deeply concerning and I said that it shows unwillingness by the government—in which he is a senior minister—to provide the required resources, to his department, to finalise these applications in a reasonable time frame.
I am seeking an explanation from the minister for immigration as to why he has let times blow out with so many citizenship applications. I want to see the government's plan to bring the processing of citizenship applications within a reasonable and lawful time frame. As you would expect from this government, I am yet to receive a response to my letter. Perhaps I too will be waiting two years for my letter to be responded to, as citizenship applicants who want to become citizens of our great country are also being kept waiting two years. I call on the government and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to do their job and to take action to ensure that all citizenship applications are processed within a time frame in line with community expectations and in line with the law of our country.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (18:35): I thank the member for Bruce for moving this motion because it gives me an opportunity to speak about something that is happening in my electorate—in fact, something that is happening to people who live in my electorate. It was way back in 2014 when my staff first brought to my attention the increasing length of time people were waiting to get ceremonies or waiting for their applications for citizenship to be assessed. At first, it was quite subtle. There were some unusual stories, but it was quite subtle. But, over the 2014 and 2015 years, our concerns grew as we heard stories of people who had been given a date for a citizenship ceremony and then been told two days before by voicemail that the ceremony was not on, only to drive past and see that it was. People were being told that they could not be scheduled for a ceremony for several months. People were waiting a lot longer than the 12 months which is the standard. In fact, if it takes longer than 12 months, they are supposed to be advised in writing by the minister, and yet it was not happening. We were finding that we were using more and more of the resources of our office chasing down what was happening to applications that were, at times, years old.
In 2015, the Refugee Council noticed the same thing and did a report, and that report was quite damning. They surveyed 188 people, and they found exactly the same stories that we found. Rather than 80 per cent of applications being processed in 80 days, the statistic according to the department, they found that, of these 188 people from refugee backgrounds, the average person waited for 215 days, and the longest waits were 603, 623 and 682 days. Of those who completed the test and were yet to attend a ceremony, a full quarter of them waited 357 days from the time of their application while the average waiting time was 270 days. Two hundred and seventy days is a long time between actually doing everything you need to do—going through the process, sitting the test, being accepted and then just waiting for a ceremony—and it being made final.
That is made worse by what is known as direction 62, which is a ministerial direction which rules that no applications for family reunions will be considered. They just basically go to the bottom of the pile until people become citizens. I had one really quite beautiful man incredibly traumatised because his young child is still in his home country with no-one and she is being abused. He believes she will die before he ever sees her again. We had another person who was forcibly separated from their two-year-old, and that child is now eight. They have found her and they are trying to get her back to Australia. These are dreadful stories that we are hearing and dreadful delays that seem to be focused on people who came by boat more than others. One of our biggest complaints here is the seemingly different treatment of people depending on how they arrived here.
Last year, two young men took the department to the Federal Court over extensive delays, and the judgement by the court was really quite interesting. Those two men had been waiting 18 and 23 months respectively, and the judgement was quite damning. There was evidence received that more than 10,000 applications required further assessment as of July 2016, yet there were only 12 officers in the department who were trained to assess those applications. So there were 10,000 applications requiring further assessment and only 12 staff to do it. It was also 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. This is a damning judgement by the courts of the government's behaviour in this.
I can accept at face value that the government might believe that the reassessments are necessary for security reasons. I can accept that at face value. What I cannot accept is true is that the solution is to have these people who you fear are not legitimate asylum seekers and may be dangerous to Australia waiting out in the community for even longer. In fact, if you think they are a risk, the thing to do is to speed up the processing, put extra staff on and get it done so that you can identify those who you do not want to accept as citizens, remove them and let the others get on with their lives. Every month we delay the citizenship test makes it harder for these people to settle. I strongly call on the government to get its act together in relation to these delays.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (18:40): I have heard from many constituents in my electorate about this issue. Some of their stories are about long delays in processing times for all sorts of applications. As I am sure do my colleagues on both sides of the House, we get constituents coming in to the office trying to make sense of the long delays there seem to be when it comes to this process of citizenship application with the testing, checking and then conferral.
A constituent of mine who has applied for citizenship of our great country came to my office last year. He had lodged his application in September of the previous year—2015. He had not heard anything from the department, so he came in to see me after I was elected to try to work out what was going on and what was going wrong. When he lodged the application the estimated processing time frame for an application was 80 days, but there he was an entire year later no closer to having a decision than when he made that application. These delays caused undue stress and concern to him and his family. As this constituent had had limited interaction with the government, he did not want to stir the pot by making any inquiries or making too much of a deal about it, but he pleaded with me to assist, which we did. He is a fine member of the community, holding down a full-time job and with good references. When you sit down with one of your constituents you can just tell sometimes, 'This is a good man who wants to be a citizen of our country.' He has been through the proper application processes, but there has been this interminable wait that has continued. He did not want to make too much drama about it, but he did the right thing in coming to see us. That is our job, but we are getting so many of these people who are not being responded to in anywhere near the time lines that have been laid out.
These uncertainties and delays have continued. He has been unable to travel to visit sick family overseas whilst he is waiting for this decision to be made on various applications. It has been over a number of years now. Eventually at the urging of his local church he came to my office seeking an update. We followed up with the department and the minister, and since then he has been able to sit a citizenship test. As I said, it is our job and we are happy to do it, but it should not take intervention from a federal electorate office to make these things happen
Let me be clear: I am not disparaging the staff of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection at all. They are doing their job and they are doing a fine job, but it seems that there are things that the government could be doing to improve the situation. It makes you wonder why there are such lengthy delays. It is outrageous that people who want to become citizens have to wait much longer than the period of time they are told they will. If there is a resourcing problem, fix it so that people can be processed. As the member for Parramatta said, it is in our interests to not only stick to what we say we are going to do but also do it in an expedient way so that people who passionately want to be Australian citizens can do that. If there is someone who should be taken out off the queue and looked at more carefully, we can do that as well.
I have said to the minister for citizenship that I am happy to help with the backlog. There is a huge backlog.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr GOSLING: I have not been able to run a citizenship ceremony. The previous CLP member ran one every other week when she was running citizenship ceremonies. But when I became the member for Solomon, I have not been able to run one. But he tells me he will allow me to run a citizenship ceremony, so I look forward to that.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr GOSLING: I would like to think citizenship is not being politicised. I look forward to the minister for citizenship allowing me to help with his current backlog problem.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Queensland Infrastructure
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (18:45): I 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.
I move this motion on reflection of the fact that the Queensland government's spending on infrastructure has been a disastrous underinvestment throughout the state. The Queensland government has savagely cut infrastructure spending in Queensland, sapping confidence and costing jobs. It has slashed infrastructure spending by more $2 billion in its first year in office. Over the next four years, infrastructure spending has been cut by almost $3 billion. The Queensland government has not funded one new major infrastructure project in its two years in office. It is more interested in political pointscoring than working collaboratively with the Australian government on new infrastructure projects. This motion calls on the Queensland government to reverse this concerning trend and deliver infrastructure that the people of Queensland require and that the Queensland economy desperately needs.
The Australian government is focused on delivering key infrastructure priorities in Queensland—
Mr Dick: What about the M1?
Mr VAN MANEN: in particular our 2016 election commitments, including the Pacific Motorway Gateway merge and the Pacific Motorway Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes section. We have committed our share of funding to these important projects, however these projects have slowed thanks to the Queensland Labor government and their underinvestment in vital infrastructure.
A report released by the RPS Group which analyses ABS data shows public sector spending on infrastructure in Queensland is at record lows since 2006, and half the rate of expenditure it was five years ago. Queensland's public spending on infrastructure is at a 10-year low. While future generations will suffer for it, frustrated Queenslanders are suffering now. I talk to people regularly, every single day, who are frustrated at the lack of infrastructure being built not only on the M1 corridor. The member for Wright is here and he has the Mount Lindesay Highway and the Beaudesert Salisbury rail line, and I know the member for Wright is an advocate for those very important infrastructure projects that affect both of our electorates.
The coalition government is focused on delivering infrastructure for the 21st century, including in Queensland. Our current commitment to Queensland's land transport infrastructure is $12.1 billion from 2013-14 through to 2019-20. While the Queensland government slashes infrastructure spending, the Turnbull coalition government is investing billions of dollars improving Queensland's transport networks. Infrastructure related election commitments in Queensland from the federal government total some $496.2 million, which is a substantial further investment in projects in Queensland to drive productivity, economic growth and employment. This includes a commitment of $215 million to Pacific Motorway Gateway merge project in a combination of Rankin, Moreton and Bonner, and the Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes upgrade project. In addition, the Australian government has committed over $223 million towards projects in Queensland under the Northern Australia Roads Program and over $56 million under the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program.
While the Queensland government is fighting over the 80-20 funding split for works on the M1 Pacific Motorway, these projects have historically been funded 50-50 due to the high levels of urban traffic that use that corridor. The Australian government stands by its commitment on these two projects and has agreed to front-load the funding of these projects to allow the progression of the expression of interest process to begin on the Pacific Motorway Gateway merge and also the Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes project.
Mr Dick interjecting—
Mr VAN MANEN: The member for Oxley interjects, and he will get his chance in a minute, but I will just remind the member for Oxley that our money sits on the table; the state government has not come up with a cent at this point.
I am very pleased to say that we are continuing to work with the Queensland government to finalise the funding splits, with the outcomes from the EOI process to inform the discussions. It is frustrating, however, that the Queensland Minister for Main Roads, Road Safety and Ports, Mark Bailey, has continued to play politics over this matter. As recently as October 2016, he publicly claimed that the Australian government had short-changed Queensland, as the funding committed through both the northern Australia roads programs was below the notional allocation outlined in the budget of 2016. The budget paper highlighted that state allocations had not yet been determined. Despite the fact that the government's commitment to Queensland is lower than what was notionally allocated, Queensland will still receive more than a third of the available funding under the Northern Australia Roads Program and more than half the funding available under the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program. For Mr Bailey to say that the Australian government is short-changing Queensland is simply not correct, and any such suggestion is an insult when you lay out the billions of dollars we are investing in Queensland.
We have committed up to $6.7 billion to a 10-year program of works on the Bruce Highway, with a list of projects and packages targeted at improving safety, flood mitigation and reducing congestion as part of its plan. We are providing up to $1.37 billion on the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, which is the largest Australian government commitment to a single regional road project in Queensland's history. We have committed $914.2 million to the Gateway Upgrade North project, which is expected to deliver a range of benefits, including supporting economic growth, and improving accessibility to Australia TradeCoast, Port of Brisbane and Brisbane airport—reducing travel time delays and improving safety and performance. We have also committed $508 million to a package of works totalling $635 million on the Warrego Highway between Toowoomba and Miles, as well as $200 million towards the Ipswich Motorway Rocklea to Darra upgrade—so, there, Member for Oxley, is the answer to your earlier question—and $208 million to the Cape York Region Package to upgrade road access to Cape York.
From a rail perspective, the Australian government has committed an additional $593.7 million in equity for the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project in addition to the $300 million previously committed. We are also undertaking a study to explore the potential to extend the scope of the Inland Rail project to Gladstone and will also be working with the Queensland government to identify Brisbane freight needs, including connection to the Port of Brisbane. The coalition government is investing $150 million towards the Townsville Eastern Access Rail Corridor, which will provide a new eight-kilometre rail freight line connecting the North Coast Line to the Port of Townsville. In South-East Queensland we are investing $95 million towards stage 2 of the Gold Coast light rail network as well as funding for smaller off-network projects such as road maintenance funding and projects funded under subprograms such as the Black Spot Program, Roads to Recovery, the Bridges Renewal Program, the National Highway Upgrade Program and the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program. I do not think that any of this list shows that we are short-changing Queensland at all.
Regardless of Queensland Labor's banter and politicking, we will continue to work with them to deliver the infrastructure needed to increase productivity and improve efficiency on Queensland's transport network. However, if we are to be successful we need the Queensland Labor government to stop playing games and spreading misinformation about funding agreements and commit to their fair share of the infrastructure projects. I am calling on the Queensland government to reverse their concerning trend of reduced infrastructure expenditure and deliver the infrastructure that the people of Queensland desperately need to get the Queensland economy growing and get jobs again for the Queensland economy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Buchholz: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (18:55): This is an attempt to distract from the federal government's failed infrastructure agenda, an agenda characterised by cuts, delays and reannouncements. When we were in government, we increased funding per capita in Queensland for infrastructure from $109 to $301 for every Queenslander. We actually built things.
In the member's rhetoric that he went through there, he had the hide to raise a number of programs, including the Ipswich Motorway. We contributed $2½ billion to the Ipswich Motorway and put in the 2013 budget the Darra to Rocklea money that they just tried to claim. It has been sitting there. It would have been under construction by now had we been re-elected. They had the hide to turn up at the Moreton Bay Rail Link opening—$742 million. The link was first promised in 1895 but delivered by a federal Labor government, in conjunction with the state Labor government.
They had the hide to raise Gold Coast Light Rail. They actually opposed the project, to which $365 million was contributed by us. They opposed it every single step of the way. They went out there and told shopkeepers, 'You'll lose your businesses,' and actually organised petitions and spoke in this parliament against that project. For phase 2, they took the money from the savings that we had contributed for the Moreton Bay Rail Link, made on that project—not one dollar of additional funding.
On the Bruce Highway, they contributed, when they were in government, $1.3 billion over 12 years. We contributed $7.6 billion over six years, four times the funding in half the time. That was our record. Areas like the Cooroy to Curra section were ignored by the local member even though he was the transport minister. He could not deliver a dollar for that project.
There was the Warrego Highway upgrade. The Cape York road package was put by us in the 2013 budget. Since then it has been reannounced by those opposite seven separate times, pretending that it is a new project. There is the Gladstone Port Access Road, the Peak Downs Highway, the Townsville Ring Road and the Townsville Port Access Road—all of these projects. The Gateway Upgrade North was contributed by us. It had begun at the time of the election. There is the Mains and Kessels Road intersection, the Pacific Motorway upgrade and Legacy Way, the first time that a Commonwealth government has combined with a local government for a major project, with then Lord Mayor Newman. Five hundred million dollars was our contribution to delivering that project. All of these projects were delivered by us when we were in government. Of course, there is the Cross River Rail project, approved by Infrastructure Australia in 2012, funded in 2013 and stopped by those opposite and cut in late 2013. That would have been well under construction by now.
Of course, what they do then is attack the Labor state government over issues like the M1-Gateway merge. We are going to fund it; the state government want to fund it. You have done nothing about it. You are now in your fourth year of government and you are struggling to come up with anything at all. The Queensland Labor government have put in place a state infrastructure plan. They have passed a new planning act. They have established Building Queensland. The fact is that the federal government have failed completely. I say to the honourable member opposite that he should not come in here and talk about what the state Labor government should do. What he should do is talk to the National Party, who hold the infrastructure portfolio, and demand some actual investment—not re-announcement of projects already funded but announcement of some new projects that will boost productivity, create jobs and assist the great state of Queensland.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:00): My community in the electorate of Fisher has suffered a great deal from the indecision and lack of leadership from the Queensland Labor state government. I am grateful to the member for Forde for giving me the opportunity to once again ask the Deputy Premier and her colleagues: when are you going to come to the party and do your bit to get the much-needed infrastructure that the Sunshine Coast deserves? My community is being transformed by its own success. We have new cities springing up around us, at the Aura development in the not too distant future, at Palmview and at Beerwah east. We have an exciting new CBD at Maroochydore. We have new medical facilities and an expanded airport. It is indeed an exciting time to live and work on the Sunshine Coast.
Last week, the respected Australian demographer Bernard Salt launched his report The activated city. If he is correct, we will see more than 200,000 people moving to the coast by 2040. We will have younger people, more families with kids and more people moving and working around our region. Axiomatically, an active and vibrant community of 550,000 people cannot thrive and prosper with infrastructure designed for 150,000. The people of Fisher know exactly what we need. We need an upgraded Bruce Highway from Caboolture to Caloundra—there was nothing about that mentioned by the member for Grayndler; we need a duplicated railway line all the way to Nambour—there was nothing about that mentioned by the member for Grayndler; and we need light rail on the eastern side of the highway—there was nothing about that mentioned by the member for Grayndler. In fact, the member for Grayndler did not mention one single thing that the Labor Party has ever done for Fisher. We also need upgraded local roads like the Mooloolah River interchange, Caloundra Road, Kawana Way and the Bells Creek arterial.
That is why I have worked closely with the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to ensure that the Commonwealth government are doing all that we can. In September last year, we announced the long-awaited upgrade of the Caloundra Road-Sunshine Motorway project. This investment will cost $920.3 million, to widen the highway to six lanes as well as upgrade the Sunshine Motorway and Caloundra Road interchanges. Infrastructure spending like this pays dividends for our community. This upgrade alone will deliver a benefit to the Sunshine Coast of more than $4 billion in improved productivity. In total, the coalition have completed 10 projects out of our 10-year, $6.7 billion commitment to upgrade the Bruce Highway, but in my electorate we now urgently need an upgrade to the highway between Caboolture and Caloundra. We need to widen the highway between those areas to six or even eight lanes and we need to flood-proof the road between Caboolture and Steve Irwin Way. While other projects all over Australia progress through Infrastructure Australia's priority list, secure federal support and get underway, the missing link—the upgrade of the highway—has stalled. Why? Because the state Labor government are dragging their feet. It is trapped in the mire of the do-nothing Labor government's endless round of eternal inquiries and reviews. This must end today. So I ask Minister Trad: when are you going to fast-track the Bruce Highway planning study and let us get on with this critical upgrade?
We cannot rely on road alone. It is also vital that we duplicate the North Coast rail line. That same piece of railway line is 100 years old and has been untouched since then. The upgrade has long been promised by state Labor governments but they have never delivered. It was the LNP that finally came up with a firm proposal in 2015 to upgrade the line between Beerburrum and Landsborough. I have pursued this upgrade at a federal level since my first speech in parliament. I have had many constructive conversations with Minister Chester, but they have fallen on deaf ears at a state level. Not once has the state Labor government contacted Minister Chester and spoken to him about that upgrade. I ask Minister Trad: when are you going to pick up the phone and talk to Minister Chester and get this project happening and make it a reality? I ask the House to join with me in calling on the state Labor government to stop putting their union mates before the people of Queensland and get the Sunshine Coast the infrastructure it deserves. (Time expired)
Mr DICK (Oxley) (19:05): I am delighted to speak on this motion, and listening to the member for Forde feels like we have entered an alternative universe. Of all the people in this parliament and of all the people who wanted to come in and talk about infrastructure, the member for Forde would want to talk about infrastructure issues in his own electorate that he continues to neglect. I will allow my colleague the member for Rankin, who has spoken and advocated so strongly on critical infrastructure for the southern part of Brisbane, to deal with the member for Forde. I want to talk about what is happening in the southwest of Brisbane, and I want to talk particularly about the hypocrisy by those opposite, who feel that they can in some way come into this place and lecture anyone about infrastructure in Queensland. We have had a state Labor government that has picked up the carnage that was delivered by the Newman government. You want to talk about infrastructure. The former government sacked people, put them on the scrap heap and attempted to sell off essential assets, and then we saw critical projects abandoned.
I will focus on a couple of things in my contribution today. I note in the motion that the member for Forde talks about no infrastructure being built. The challenge I issue to him today is that there is a $163 million state government investment for the rail duplication from Coomera to Helensvale. I will challenge the member for Forde about whether he will go to that opening when the cameras come and when the ribbon happens. I suspect he will. He is happy to come in here and bag everyone and not defend his own record or explain to his own constituency and community why he has failed them time and time again. There is a reason why you got a massive swing against you at the last election. That is because of the neglect that those opposite have treated the people of Queensland with. He did not mention a major infrastructure project that sits right at his doorstep.
We know that the Palaszczuk Labor government is cleaning up the mess from the Newman legacy, and we know that the government has allocated $850 million for the Cross River Rail, more than any other government. It is ready to go. And we know this sorry tale of Cross River Rail, abandoned by those opposite and by the Newman government, who came up with the fantasy idea of the BaT, the bus and train tunnel, on which his own ministers after the election went out and said: 'We made it up. We made the whole thing up.' That is your legacy in Queensland. That is your legacy, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Oxley will withdraw comments through the chair.
Mr DICK: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Through you, I say to the member for Forde: that is your legacy of delivering for Queensland. There is little wonder why—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—your leader in the Senate describes the current opposition leader as 'very, very ordinary', because he was the architect behind these savage cuts and the lack of infrastructure spend, particularly when it comes to Cross River Rail. They have a gall coming in here and talking about infrastructure in Queensland.
I want to talk about the most important infrastructure project in my electorate, the Darra to Rocklea upgrade. As we heard from the member for Grayndler, money allocated by the federal Labor government, $200 million, is sitting in the budget. Four years later, what has happened?
It took a Labor state government, the same people they want to decry, to get this project going. It took Bill Shorten and the federal Labor team to announce this project. Then, after four years and at five minutes to midnight, the hopeless, dysfunctional coalition government honoured their commitment. Well, I say it is four years too late. It is four years that my local residents have had to sit in traffic, day in, day out, without getting home to their families and without school students being able to get to and from school. They were trapped in coalition gridlock. That is the legacy of those opposite. Do not come in here and lecture anyone about infrastructure, because, when you look at the spend that is happening right now, a $40 billion capital program will deliver 31,000 jobs this year alone. We know that the state Labor government has delivered the first state infrastructure plan and backed it with $2 billion worth of state infrastructure funding. We know that, time and time again, when it comes to delivering infrastructure and when it comes to the south-west of Brisbane, the people can rely on a state Labor government and, in the future, a federal Labor government to get them home on time. (Time expired).
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (19:11): I rise today in support of the member for Forde's motion condemning the Palaszczuk Labor government for failing the people of Queensland and my constituents of Capricornia. Regional Queensland will come undone without new infrastructure investment. The regions are struggling to create the diverse economies they need to be sustainable. Great opportunities exist to bridge this gap, but the Palaszczuk government continues to cut funding for vital infrastructure to get these industries going. This is costing us jobs and livelihood. No investment means no new jobs. Unemployment is up and job vacancies are down. Investment in the state has reduced and the constant Brisbane-centric focus on investment is destroying regional communities in my electorate of Capricornia. In Rockhampton, the jobless figures confirm the situation. The latest data shows the unemployment rate in Rockhampton at a staggering 7.5 per cent. This is compared to 6.3 per cent throughout Queensland and 5.7 per cent Australia wide. The labour market has worsened over the last year, with the policies of the Palaszczuk government costing 32,200 hardworking Queenslanders their jobs. Take Rookwood Weir near Gogango. It has been in planning for years. Construction was promised in 2011 by the Beattie government. Fifty per cent of constructions costs, or $130 million, was funded by the federal government, and $2 million was given, again by the federal government, to build the business case. Yet just last week we were told they will not consider the business case until the third quarter. Meanwhile, 400 families are missing out on the construction-phase jobs and 2,100 workers and investors in agriculture are being denied opportunities. The wider community is missing out on the 4,000 flow-on full-time jobs in Capricornia. You would hope that having the state minister for agriculture in your electorate would be a good thing. If Bill Byrne was serious about his electorate and agriculture, he would fast-track the Premier's sign-off for Rookwood Weir and give the people of regional Queensland a fighting chance for survival.
The Palaszczuk government cannot argue that the lack of infrastructure spending is an attempt to fix the budget. Since coming to power, the Queensland Public Service has jumped by 16,000 full-time equivalent positions, throwing an extra $2 billion debt onto the budget. Construction jobs and building infrastructure will create the flow-on effects needed for the economies of Central Queensland. Instead, the budget is going to Brisbane based bureaucrats who sit in George Street scratching their heads over what project they can delay next. Despite promising to deliver much-needed infrastructure, capital works have been slashed by $2.3 billion across Queensland. It currently sits at the lowest level as a percentage of the state's economy. Energy projects, road projects, and health and building projects are all delayed and are all focused on the south-east, with the occasional lip service to the far north. There is plenty of opportunity but no delivery—and all to keep the Greens happy to buy inner-city votes. Rookwood Weir, Great Keppel Island, Walkerston—all sitting waiting for approvals as the jobs slip by.
This is in contrast to the commitments delivered by the coalition government to the people of Capricornia and Central Queensland. During my first term in parliament, over $550 million in funding was secured for job-creating infrastructure projects throughout my electorate and another $330 million of water, jobs and growth plan committed during the 2016 election—$880 million worth of job-creating infrastructure projects that will create the diverse economy needed to provide jobs. This needs to be backed by project approvals and state-owned infrastructure development to get industry moving.
It is time to stop the empty rhetoric and get on with the job of building Queensland. And it is time to deliver jobs for the people of Capricornia , the people of Rockhampton, the people of Keppel, Mirani and Gregory—the people of Queensland. With a state election due this year, I am looking forward to working with the strong LNP team of Tim Nicholls and Deb Frecklington. Thank you.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (19:15): For too long now, my community, the people of my community and businesses of my community have wasted hour after hour after hour in traffic on the M1, because the LNP could not care less about them. So imagine my surprise when I saw on the Notice Paper that the member for Forde was the one moving this motion. I thought that there had been some kind of typo. I thought that there had been some kind of mistake but I checked and, no, it really was the member for Forde who was leading with his chin by moving this pathetic little motion. This member of all members moving this motion of all motions is a characteristically feeble attempt to shift the blame for his own lack of influence over infrastructure funding.
If they want to talk about infrastructure and they want to talk about Queensland and they want to talk about neglect, let's talk about Queensland and infrastructure and neglect. And let's us talk about the M1 freeway because that is a symbol of what this government thinks about my community in Logan City and the surrounding suburbs. This is a symbol of the member for Forde's total inability after seven years as a member, four of these years in government, to trouble the scorers whatsoever when it comes to some kind of commitment to the M1 freeway in my community.
I know a bit about the M1. I worked out that I have lived for almost all of my life within a kilometre or two of the freeway itself at Underwood, at Rochedale South, at Springwood, at Daisy Hill. I remember fondly one of my first jobs delivering pizzas for Eagle Boys up and down the freeway, in and out of Logan Central, Woodridge and Kingston, in and around Marsden, up north into Rochedale South, Rochedale, Underwood and all of those suburbs. So I would like to think I know a little bit about that freeway, getting off and on between exits 19 and 23 where I have lived for almost all of my life.
And I am proud to have taken to the last election a $168 million commitment to fix the Gateway merge southbound, a commitment that I made with a great local champion in Des Hardman. We made that commitment at a community forum hosted by Bill Shorten in Beenleigh, and I am proud that we did that after all that consideration and all that consultation. I am proud that it has been Labor that has invested in the Logan stretch of the M1—$312 million when we were last in government—because I know what it means to the families and businesses and our community. So does our chamber of commerce, so does our local council, so do our local members like Mick de Brenni, Shannon Fentiman, Cameron Dick and all of those terrific local representatives. So does Minister Bailey and Premier Palaszczuk. So does Senator Murray Watt, Anthony Chisholm and all of our senators but, most importantly of all, our community knows how important the M1 is.
What a contrast when you look at the record of those opposite: not a cent delivered in upgrades in the Logan stretch of the M1 in the four years they have had in government. That is not a disappointing record. That is not an underwhelming record. It is not a record at all. There is no record whatsoever to speak of and so, instead we get this half-baked announcement made in the dying days of the 2016 election, trying to pretend that a fifty-fifty split with the government will get it endorsed when they knew and we knew—everybody knew—that that commitment was just designed to paper over their lack of attention and their lack of commitment over so many years. No amount of motions, no amount of pathetic motions, like this will cover up for that fact. Is it any wonder that the member for Forde has slunk out of this chamber? Having moved the motion so courageously, gotten up and read out from his prepared notes, as he always does, he has slunk out of here. He has gone missing from this chamber like he has gone missing from the community in Logan City. It is pathetic.
Enough is enough. We need to see work start in those key upgrades, particularly the Gateway M1 southbound merge. As was reported last week in two good local papers—the Logan Reporter and the Albert & Logan News—Labor has committed to support any compromise between the state and federal governments which sees work underway on this important stretch of freeway, because it has gone on long enough. We intend to play a constructive role in fixing the LNP's mess, because every minute wasted is a stunning illustration of the lack of influence of those opposite on the M1, particularly the member for Forde. He is not in here moving a motion about federal investment, because of Labor's proud record outlined by the member for Grayndler—things like that terrific investment out west, towards the member for Oxley's electorate and the member for Blair's electorate, which came after so much advocacy from both of them and the former member for Oxley. The member for Forde was too ashamed and too embarrassed to move a motion about federal funding.
I say to the member for Forde: get on and do what you are paid to do. Stand up for our community, who deserve better than your feeble and fumbling ineptitude and your sneering disdain for them and for our suburbs. (Time expired)
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (19:21): I rise to speak on the current Labor Queensland government's underinvestment in infrastructure across Queensland. Our electorate of Groom in the Darling Downs has been overlooked by successive Queensland Labor governments when it comes to infrastructure. The single largest piece of infrastructure being built in regional Australia right now is the $1.6 billion Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. It was the LNP government in Queensland that signed the original agreements with the then federal government. I knew because I was the acting Treasurer at the time, and I signed them alongside the then federal Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development and Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Warren Truss.
Federal and state Labor governments have continued to ignore the priority of that nation-building project many years over. In Groom, the Wagner family has built the first greenfield jet-capable airport in 44 years. They did it in 18 months. The Gardner family is investing in a world-class technology park and data hub. The federal government is providing majority support to the $508 million Warrego Highway Upgrade Program, west of Toowoomba. We are absolutely committed to the Inland Rail project, yet another national nation-building project. But Queensland public spending is at a 10-year low according to an RPS Group analysis of ABS data.
We knew before the last state election that Labor's disloyalty to the regions throughout Queensland could be exposed, and they confirmed that by scrapping the successful Royalties for the Regions program. Under the leadership of Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney in 2012, the LNP created the Royalties for the Regions program to fund the roads, bridges, water infrastructure and flood mitigation that regional communities desperately needed after 20 years of Labor neglect. We committed $495 million over four years to fund the projects that regional Queensland has needed in their local areas, and we delivered.
Opposition members interjecting—
Dr McVEIGH: To those opposite: what is the problem with the flood-proofing of Blakeys Crossing in Townsville that we did, the Kin Kora roundabout upgrade in Gladstone, the ring road and flood mitigation in Toowoomba, the flood levee bank project in Roma, the revitalisation of the Cooktown Foreshore and the brand-new swimming pool for the remote community of Karumba in the gulf? Queensland Labor scrapped that program. It is, therefore, music to my ears, as it would be for all Queenslanders, to hear Deb Frecklington, the deputy leader of the Queensland opposition and the shadow minister for infrastructure, state development, trade and investment, announce that the LNP would bring back the Royalties for the Regions program with another half a billion dollars committed, thereby, once again, returning investment to the very regions that create the wealth and the very communities Queensland Labor continues to ignore.
We have seen Queensland Labor governments stalling on water infrastructure. Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, is pushing hard on our federal coalition government's history-making $2.5 billion water investment. He has $130 million on the table for the construction of Central Queensland's Rookwood Weir. In 2006 Peter Beattie, then Queensland Premier, said he would construct it, but all of his successors, including those now in 2017, are not interested at all.
This and other projects identified by the Deputy Prime Minister are aimed at unlocking Queensland's full economic and productive potential. But I am sad to say that Queensland Labor has simply dropped the ball. The Queensland Labor government needs to get on with the job and stop delaying the construction of that project, in particular, from being supported by the federal government. The creation of around 2,100 new jobs would go with it. The Queensland Labor government needs to address its severe underinvestment in infrastructure throughout Queensland.
Mr Dick interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Oxley will contain himself.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (19:25): The previous member for Groom actually promised in his maiden speech, in 1998, that the second range crossing for Toowoomba would be built, he hoped, by 2005. It is now being completed by the Palaszczuk Labor government, with the cooperation of this government. He promised that. In a debate that I had with him, with the council of South-East Queensland mayors, he put up some money towards it, but it was not anywhere near the money that was needed. It was a false economy. He was like he was saying, 'I'll give my daughter $70 to buy a pair of sneakers,' when they cost $170. He claimed it was going to be done. The member for Groom should have a chat to his predecessor.
Let us have a look at infrastructure in Queensland. We are talking about a four-year program of $40 billion by the Palaszczuk government. Ten per cent of the hours worked on those projects, which will create 31,000 jobs, will be done by apprentices. The Turnbull-Abbott government have seen 130,000 fewer apprenticeships in this country since they came into office.
You want to talk about infrastructure in South-East Queensland? I campaigned in 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013 for the Ipswich Motorway upgrade from Dinmore to Darra. This mob made a campaign commitment in 2010 to actually stop construction on the Ipswich Motorway. That is what Warren Truss, the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said in October 2009 in this place. He said he would stop construction. That is 10,000 jobs in South-East Queensland, and guess what—the LNP would stop construction. What happened in the May 2013 budget? We put in money, hundreds of millions of dollars.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): There will be order! The odd interjection is acceptable up here, but not open warfare.
Mr NEUMANN: It is not affecting my delivery. I am continuing. In May 2013 we put hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget to kickstart the Darra to Rocklea section. Twelve thousand freight vehicles a day and 93,000 commuters every day go through that section. Guess what. We had a situation where the Abbott government took the Ipswich Motorway upgrade from Darra to Rocklea of the National Land Transport Network and ripped the money away from Queensland. And they have got the gall to move motions like this here. It took Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, the now member for Oxley, the member for Moreton and I to stand there and make a commitment and to shame the Turnbull government into finally putting the money towards the Ipswich Motorway upgrade from Darra to Rocklea. It was the first time the LNP have ever made a commitment and put any money towards the Ipswich Motorway. It was the first time ever. So do not come to this place and give us lectures about infrastructure.
What about other infrastructure across the region? What have they done in relation to my area and the Willowbank Interchange? We need to make a commitment there, because the RAAF base at Amberley is having a $1 billion upgrade. So we need an upgrade on that area of the Cunningham Highway from Yamanto to Ebenezer Creek. We need that done. And what have this mob done in their time in office? Nothing. We had Minister Payne come out to my area and say, 'This is a good idea for an aerospace precinct,' but nothing was done. They made false commitments in terms of a veteran support centre up there, of $1 million. But where has it been done? I have written to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, saying, 'Get it done.' But listen to the commitment of these people. Look at what they have done in our region and look at what Labor has done.
We know there has been infrastructure in our region. The member for Oxley would know the Orion pool. We have seen the USQ upgrade. We have seen funding to a whole range of areas in our region—things like Studio 188 and the North Ipswich Reserve precinct being upgraded, a whole range of projects for Ipswich. It is fantastic. This mob opposite do nothing and have the gall, the hide, to come into this place and move motions like this. We are lectured by those opposite, who sacked 60,000 Queenslanders and got rejected at the election.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr NEUMANN: You were absolutely part of it. You skipped out before you could get turfed out. That is what happened, and those opposite should hang their heads in shame. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:3 1
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Mobile Black Spot Program
(Question No. 35)
Mr Keogh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications, in writing, on 11 October 2016:
To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Communications—In respect of the mobile black spot impacting residents in the residential suburbs of Haynes and Hilbert in Western Australia, (a) has the Minister received any proposals for funding under the Mobile Black Spot Program for new or upgraded base stations that would improve mobile reception in Haynes or Hilbert, and (b) would the Minister consider such a proposal if one was made by a mobile network operator.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the member's question is as follows:
Rounds 1 and 2 of the Mobile Black Spot Program did not receive any proposals from applicants for funding new or upgraded base stations in Haynes or Hilbert.
At this time, there are no further rounds of the Mobile Black Spot Program under which funding can be sought for mobile infrastructure in the areas of Haynes and Hilbert.
Government tenders
(Question No. 668)
Dr Leigh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, in writing, on 07 February 2017:
(1) How many Government tenders were issued in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-10, (d) 2010-11, (e) 2011-12, (f) 2012-13, (g) 2013-14, (h) 2014-15, and (i) 2015-16. (2) How many Government tenders received zero bids in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-10, (d) 2010-11, (e) 2011-12, (f) 2012-13, (g) 2013-14, (h) 2014-15, and (i) 2015-16. (3) How many Government tenders received a single bid in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-10, (d) 2010-11, (e) 2011-12, (f) 2012-13, (g) 2013-14, (h) 2014-15, and (i) 2015-16. (4) How many Government tenders received two or more bids in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09, (c) 2009-10, (d) 2010-11, (e) 2011-12, (f) 2012-13, (g) 2013-14, (h) 2014-15, and (i) 2015-16.
Mr Morrison: The Minister for Finance has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Commonwealth operates a devolved procurement framework where entities are responsible for undertaking their own procurement processes. Entities conduct these procurements using a range of different methods and systems to meet their business needs.
A subset of Government tendering information is available for Commonwealth entities that are subject to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules on AusTender (tenders.gov.au).
Data from AusTender on open approaches to market, identified as requests for tender (RFTs), using online lodgement is outlined below.
Financial Year |
RFTs with online lodgement |
Zero tenders recorded |
One tender recorded |
Two or more tenders recorded |
2007 - 2008 |
425 |
14 |
30 |
381 |
2008 - 2009 |
419 |
15 |
11 |
393 |
2009 - 2010 |
507 |
8 |
20 |
479 |
2010 - 2011 |
611 |
8 |
22 |
581 |
2011 - 2012 |
681 |
7 |
46 |
628 |
2012 - 2013 |
663 |
8 |
28 |
627 |
2013 - 2014 |
641 |
8 |
33 |
600 |
2014 - 2015 |
704 |
5 |
29 |
670 |
2015 - 2016 |
839 |
23 |
49 |
767 |
Western Sydney Airport
(Question No. 684)
Ms Templeman asked the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, in writing, on 16 February 2017:
In respect of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development-commissioned poll on support for Western Sydney Airport, cited in the media report 'You're PLANE Wrong!' by Jason Tin (Daily Telegraph, 14 February 2017, p.8), (a) specifically who commissioned the poll, (b) was the poll commissioned at his request, or his office, (c) what input did he or his office have into the design of the poll, including but not limited to, the (i) questions that were asked, (ii) locations of the individuals surveyed, and (iii) sample size, (d) who conducted the poll, (e) what was the contract sum, (f) over what dates was the poll conducted, (g) what questions were asked, and what type of responses were able to be given to each question, (h) what was the polling sample, (i) were any questions asked regarding (i) noise exposure, (ii) environmental impacts, (iii) community consultation processes, and/or (iv) flight paths, (j) in what specific areas did the individuals surveyed live, (k) were any individuals from the Blue Mountains local government area surveyed in this poll; if so, how many (as both a raw number and as a proportion, as a percentage, of the total individuals surveyed), and (l) what data came out of the poll, including specific responses to questions asked and survey results.
Mr Fletcher: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
a) The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
b) No.
c) None.
d) GfK Australia, on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
e) Details of Government contracts, including value, are available at www.tenders.gov.au.
f)-h) Details of the research, including its methodology, are available at http://westernsydneyairport.gov.au/resources/key_documents/.
i) i.–iii. Yes.
iv No.
j)-l) Details of the research, including its methodology, are available at http://westernsydneyairport.gov.au/resources/key_documents/.