The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
MOTIONS
Workplace Relations
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (09:31): I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Gorton from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) the horrific cases of exploitation in workplaces around the country, including at 7-Eleven;
(b) a bill to protect workers from this exploitation has passed the House and is before the Senate right now;
(c) the Prime Minister reportedly has a financial interest in 7-Eleven;
(d) the former Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, has reportedly lobbied to water down this bill;
(e) the Government is now reportedly seeking to delay this long overdue bill until August - two years after worker exploitation at 7-Eleven was first exposed; and
(f) any further delay to this bill would deny important protection to workers from exploitation; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to commit to this House that this important bill to protect workers from exploitation will be passed through both Houses of Parliament before the winter adjournment.
We are in a situation where this government is refusing to protect any workers in this country, and the Prime Minister is conflicted—
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (09:32): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Gorton be no further heard.
The House divided. [09:37]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:42): Is the motion seconded?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:42): I second the motion. Workers are being ripped off and the government is complicit—
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (09:42): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:45): The question is that the motion—
Mr Bowen: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: I have not even put the question. The member for McMahon can resume his seat. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (09:45): I move:
That the motion be put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put.
The House divided. [09:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:50): The question is that the motion moved by the member for Gorton be agreed to.
The House divided. [09:50]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017
Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (09:56): Earlier, I was talking about the additional gambling advertising restrictions that the Minister for Communications announced on 6 May and how it is notable that the minister was unable to explain at the Senate estimates process that was conducted recently exactly how they would be implemented by legislation when it comes to online platforms. The restrictions on broadcast platforms are expected to be implemented through codes of practice that will commence in 2018. Labor led the way in addressing community concerns around gambling advertising in 2013 by demanding that Australia's broadcasters amend their codes to ensure a reduction in the promotion and advertising of gambling during live sport.
Concerned that the rules were not working optimally, in March this year Labor moved a motion in this place calling on the government to work with the broadcasting industry and national sporting organisations on a transition plan to address the issue of gambling ads before and during live sports broadcasts. It is notable that government MPs voted against this motion, only to announce gambling advertising restrictions in live sporting events a few weeks later. Ultimately, Labor's leadership on this issue has compelled the government to act and we welcome the measures as a step in the right direction. That says that Labor does not consider that they go far enough to address community concerns.
We anticipate that our communities will continue to complain about the intrusion of gambling advertising in live sports, given the amount of gambling advertising this government's flawed proposal continues to allow and given the fact that gambling advertisers may simply shift their advertising to avoid the five-minute shoulder. It remains to be seen whether viewers will be bombarded with gambling advertisements at the 8.30 pm mark or whether the timing of live sports fixtures will be altered to minimise the impact of the new restrictions. Labor shares the concerns of people right across Australia who are worried about the impact of gambling advertising on our community. Adults and children should be able to enjoy watching live sport without the intrusion of betting odds and gambling ads, and it is in everyone's interest to ensure that children do not associate betting and gambling as a normal part of enjoying sport.
On the matter of sport, the government's announcement of $30 million in funding to support the broadcasting of women's and niche sports is yet another area where this government is picking up on Labor proposals. Labor announced funding to support broadcasting of women's sport on the ABC, a national free-to-air service, as part of its 2016 election platform. This government's main point of difference is that it will provide the funding to subscription TV rather than the ABC and it remains to be seen what the legacy of the government's approach will be, given subscription TV's current penetration is only around 30 per cent of Australian households.
On the issue of antisiphoning, Labor is committed to ensuring Australians enjoy coverage of premium sporting events on free-to-air TV. We regard the proposed changes to the antisiphoning scheme itself to be in the nature of regulatory housekeeping. On the changes to the list of events in the antisiphoning notice proposed in this bill, changes that are permitted under the current scheme, I note these are justified on practical reasons, where the history of rights' acquisition by broadcasters and audience viewing patterns no longer warrant their inclusion, for example.
As with so many issues in this portfolio, Labor is disappointed that the government has not conducted a holistic evidence based and public consultation process on the scheme and the impact of over-the-top providers in the lead-up to proposing this bill. While change may be effected in incremental steps, it would be useful to have a roadmap of where we are headed as those steps are taken. While government acknowledges that the Australian media market has changed significantly and is willing to abolish licence fees as a consequence, as I said previously, there is an utter failure to articulate a vision for the future or a roadmap for getting there.
That brings me to content reform. It is disappointing that the government has moved to ease pressure at one end of the value chain—being commercial broadcasters—but neglected other links. This government's ad hoc approach to reform sees it granting licence fee relief for broadcasters but no relief for the production sector, which is also feeling increased competitive pressures in the contemporary media landscape. The broadcasting sector is not the only industry that has been disrupted by digitisation; yet the government, which is coming to almost four years in office now, only recently announced a content review to assess issues in the Australian production sector.
Despite the fact that the Department of Communications has identified content issues as in need of reform since 2014, as part of its dereg roadmap, this government has only recently just announced a content review. Meanwhile, recent ABS data shows the government's commitment to Australian content in the context of media reform or broadcasting reform is all talk and no action. Since 2011-12, commercial TV broadcasters appear to have cut their commitment to Australian drama and documentaries by 20 per cent. They have moved more production in-house—from 44 per cent of production in 2011-12 to 55 per cent in 2015-16. In this time, they have had a series of broadcast licence fee cuts. The production sector is suffering as a consequence of this government's inaction when it comes to joined-up reform. Ad hoc regulatory tinkering is not addressing the structural issues being faced by the industry.
The communications minister has proven to be incapable of getting his ducks in a row to usher in abolition of broadcast licence fees and the introduction of a spectrum tax at the time, as identifying its content policy. Perhaps the nexus between the two is overlooked. As the Productivity Commission stated in its inquiry into broadcasting in 2000, licence fees 'seek to recover some of the value inherent in commercial broadcasting licences from commercial broadcasters and provide a return to the public for their use of scarce radiofrequency spectrum'. The sector-specific licence fees levied on commercial broadcasters formed part of the social compact that has been a central theme in how broadcasting policy and legislation has been approached in Australia until now. The compact provided broadcasters with privileged access to use the airwaves—the highly valuable, finite and public asset that is used to transmit programming. In exchange, broadcasters were required to pay licence fees and comply with regulation that aimed to promote a range of public interest objectives, including diversity.
I want to end by saying how important Labor believes it is that Australians reap a return on that use of such a valuable public asset, and that includes blind and low-vision Australians who need audio description. These reforms do nothing to support the introduction of audio description for the blind and vision impaired community in Australia. This government is dragging its feet, setting up a working group earlier this year which is not due to report until the last day of 2017. Blind and low-vision Australians deserve better.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (10:03): Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the work of the shadow minister, who I have served on committees with previously and who certainly has a very keen interest and a lot of knowledge around the subject matter. I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. There is no doubt that the current media rules are outdated. Much of the legislative framework was developed in an analog era when the industry had only three main media platforms—newspapers, TV and radio. This was well before smartphones, social media, streaming services et cetera—it just goes on and on and on.
Australians can now access media content from a wide variety of sources: streaming on-demand services like Netflix and music services like Spotify and Pandora and, for news, the choice of online sources is almost endless—and, can I say, not always accurate. As well as the traditional metropolitan and regional newspapers, there are the likes of The Guardian, The Daily Mail and The Huffington Post all vying for your clicks. This is not surprising considering the Reuters Institute claims that close to half of all Australians identify online news and social media as their main source of news. The internet has provided opportunities for new platforms and business models and the pressure on established operators has increased significantly. Newspaper circulations have shrunk significantly in recent years, and many have introduced online digital subscriptions in an attempt to retain the readership base.
Although the majority of viewing time remains devoted to broadcast television on in-home TVs, in 2015 free-to-air audiences for metropolitan broadcasters fell by five per cent. The average number of hours people were watching broadcast TV fell below 90 hours per month, or three hours per day, in the first quarter of 2015. This is the first time that it has dropped below 90 hours since monitoring was introduced in 1991. To put this into perspective, as at November 2016 more than 5.75 million Australians aged over 14 had access to a Netflix subscription.
The legislation before us today will support the viability of our local media organisations as they face increasing global competition in a rapidly changing digital landscape. I do want to talk about what I consider to be some of the key components of this bill. Firstly, it abolishes the 75 per cent reach rule. Secondly, it abolishes the two-out-of-three cross-media rule. Thirdly, it introduces higher local content obligations on regional commercial television licensees who change their control or ownership arrangements.
The 75 per cent reach rule has the practical effect of preventing mergers between any of the predominantly metropolitan commercial TV broadcasting licensees, including Seven, Nine and Ten, and any of the regional commercial TV broadcasting licensees such as Prime, WIN and Southern Cross, because such a transaction would result in a person controlling commercial TV licences whose combined licence area populations would substantially exceed the 75 per cent threshold. This rule does little to support media diversity, as regional viewers essentially receive the same commercial TV programming as metropolitan viewers, due to affiliation of content supply agreements. In addition, two metropolitan licensees now stream versions of their services across Australia, including into regional markets. Removing the 75 per cent reach rule would, subject to competition law and, of course, other relevant law, allow consolidation within the commercial TV sector and greater scale of operations, therefore allowing commercial broadcasters to compete in an environment where audiences can readily access premium content online.
The two-out-of-three cross-media control rule prohibits a person controlling more than two out of three regulated media platforms: a commercial television broadcasting licence, a commercial radio broadcasting licence and an associated newspaper in any one commercial radio licence area. This rule regulates the traditional media platforms of commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers, but it does not take into consideration the changing media landscape where consumers access news content from alternative sources such as online, and they are doing that right now.
While these two measures are to be abolished, the coalition government is maintaining other diversity rules, including the five-and-four rule, with at least five independent voices in metro areas and four in the regions; the one-to-a-market rule, where a licensee can control only one TV licence in a market; and the two-to-a-market rule, where a licensee can control no more than two radio licences in a market. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will retain its powers to scrutinise mergers and acquisitions, and it will be asked to update its guidelines accordingly. Media transactions are also subject to regulatory assessments in relation to foreign investment under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and Australia's foreign investment policy.
The third key component of the legislation is increased local programming. This is vitally important to regional communities in Australia, particularly ones like those in my own electorate of Hinkler. My electorate is fortunate to have two commercial TV networks, two daily regional newspapers, a number of community papers and both commercial and community radio stations, as well as our good friends at the ABC. Last year, Southern Cross Austereo and Nine announced that in 2017 they would broadcast 15 dedicated local Nine News bulletins to viewers in their regional markets in Queensland, southern New South Wales and regional Victoria. The bulletins will be rolled out progressively, starting in February, first in Canberra and then in Wollongong, with the other markets to follow. More than 110 staff will be employed by Nine in the regional news division. This will include Wide Bay. I believe that this new bulletin is a matter of weeks away from launching in my local region.
Ensuring local content is maintained and increased after a change of ownership or a merger was a key outcome of the Nationals media reform working party, which I was fortunate enough to chair. Local content is key to ensuring all Australians are informed, educated and entertained. Locally produced regional content ensures people are informed about what is happening in their own communities. As well as contributing to the social and economic fabric of a community, local content is particularly important when emergency services need to communicate public safety messages. Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, as you might know, we had very large floods in my region in 2013. During those floods the various local media organisations were an important conduit to ensure that people had up-to-date information, whether it was about road closures, river height monitoring, where to get emergency help or which evacuation centres were open.
We should not forget that some 34 per cent of Australians live outside the greater capital cities, and they deserve to have a voice. Regional Australia is the engine room of the nation's economy, producing 67 per cent of Australia's total export earnings. Around 45 per cent of tourism expenditure occurs in areas outside of Australia's capital cities. Broadcasting regional stories into the capitals also helps build social cohesion and informs people about issues that affect all Australians, such as food security and water supply. Small regional businesses rely on their local broadcasters to advertise their products and services and would struggle to pay the big city advertising rates.
Regional communities must be encouraged to shop local rather than buy online and to support the local economy and local jobs. Every Christmas, I run my own Shop Local campaign to encourage the community to support those local businesses during the festive season.
There are approximately 8,541 small businesses within the Hinkler electorate. Small and medium businesses contribute some $340 billion to the economy and, across Australia, small businesses employ more than four million people.
Regional newsrooms are also an important training ground for young media professionals. Many of Australia's most talented reporters attribute their success to having been thrown in at the deep end, at the start of their career, in a regional newsroom.
The media reform bill will introduce high local-content obligations on regional commercial television licensees who change their control or ownership arrangements. These new obligations would apply to the majority of regional free-to-air commercial TV broadcasters who, as a result of a change in control known as a 'trigger event', become part of a group of commercial broadcasting licensees whose combined licence area populations collectively exceed 75 per cent of the Australian population. This ensures that there are minimum local content requirements in nearly all regional areas following a trigger event, including those where there are none currently.
The Broadcasting Services Act currently requires regional commercial television broadcasting licensees in aggregated markets and Tasmania to provide approximately 120 points of material of local significance per week to local areas within the licence area. Material of local significance is material that is broadcast to a local area and relates directly to either the local area or the licence area. The aggregated markets include the following licence areas: northern New South Wales, southern New South Wales, regional Victoria, eastern Victoria, western Victoria and regional Queensland. Under the current system, one minute of material of local significance is worth one point and one minute of news that relates directly to the local area is worth two points.
In the absence of a trigger event, the practical effect of these provisions—including the existing 720 point requirement over a six week timing period—will be maintained under the amended local programming obligations contained in the bill. Six months after the occurrence of a trigger event, the bill will increase local programming requirements for affected regional commercial television broadcasting licensees in aggregated markets and Tasmania by 30 points per week and introduce local programming requirements for affected regional commercial television broadcasting licensees in non-aggregated markets. These include the following licence areas: Broken Hill, Darwin, Geraldton, Griffith and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, Kalgoorlie, Mildura, Sunraysia, Mount Gambier south-east, Mount Isa, remote and regional Western Australia, the Riverland, South-West and Great Southern, and the Spencer Gulf.
The new section will require licensees to provide approximately 60 points of material of local significance per week to each local area, with a minimum of 45 points per week. Information supplied to the Australian Communications and Media Authority by relevant licensees up until 2014 indicates that many licensees significantly exceed their programming requirements and some broadcasters operating in the non-aggregated regional markets provide local programming despite no regulatory obligation to do so.
This bill will also introduce a new local programming points system for licensees affected by a trigger event, and each minute of a legislated amount of local programming that relates to the licence area would accumulate one point. Each minute of local programming that comprises news specific to the local area would accumulate two points, and each minute of local programming that comprises news specific to the local area and is filmed within the local area would accumulate three points. This proposed point system is the most straightforward method of incorporating an incentive for filming in local areas into the local programming obligations. It is based on a similar points system that commercial broadcasters in aggregated markets are already familiar with. The proposed arrangements will also militate against overly centralised approaches to local news—for example, news broadcasts being filmed out of central locations without significant engagement with the local area in which it is broadcast.
The bill will require licensees to provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, with an initial report on their compliance with the obligations 18 months after a trigger event and a second report one year later. In order to evaluate the extent to which the bill achieves its objectives, the ACMA will review the operation of the new local program provisions within two years following the commencement of those additional obligations. Changes to the antisiphoning scheme will ensure that iconic events, such as the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, NRL and AFL premiership matches and the Ashes, remain on the list. The number of events on the current antisiphoning list is between 1,200 and 1,300 per year. Many of these events are no longer broadcast on free to air and only attract a small audience, so no longer warrant being on the list.
The bill will abolish licence fees, recognising that the Australian media market has changed significantly since broadcasting licence fees were introduced. Fees and charges placed on commercial broadcasters are no longer warranted or sustainable, particularly as their competitors do not face the same fees. The introduction of a transmitter licence tax and the abolition of broadcasting licence fees and datacasting charges will result in the vast majority of broadcasters paying considerably less in terms of their overall fee and tax burden. A small number of broadcasters in regional areas are projected to experience an increase in their tax liability. To provide these broadcasters with time to adjust to the new tax arrangements, the government will provide transitional support payments over five years. The proposed payments are based on the difference between broadcasting licence fees paid through the 2015-16 financial year and the amount of tax projected to be paid under the proposed new interim tax.
In closing, under the current rules, established media operators do not have the flexibility to respond to increasing financial pressures by adapting to the changing media landscape, including through mergers with other TV broadcasters or other associated newspaper or radio broadcasters. This legislation will allow media businesses to gain the scale necessary to compete in an increasingly fragmented and global media environment while ensuring that Australians continue to have access to a diversity of sources of news and information. Most importantly, it retains, and in some cases increases, local program content for regional communities. In the final seconds, can I acknowledge the former member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, who was extensively involved in the original legislation during the nineties. I would say to Paul, as he is well aware, that the world has moved on and we do need to make changes in the best interests of the people. We want to be broadcasting things that are important to our community. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (10:17): The two-out-of-three rule is what I will be talking mostly about in regard to this bill. That is the only element of this bill that Labor has a real problem with. The two-out-of-three rule is not perfect and it is not elegant, but it is better than nothing.
The two-out-of-three rule exists to protect Australians from a media landscape that is totally dominated by a tiny handful of very wealthy and very powerful corporate owners. Australia already has a media market that is the fourth most concentrated in the world—a list that has China at the top because of complete state ownership. Maybe I am a bit radical, but I do not see much difference in a media market totally dominated by a state owner as opposed to a media market totally dominated by a private owner. I think they both have the same sorts of problems.
Removing the two-out-of-three rule will concentrate Australia's media assets in even fewer hands. We have existing owners demanding that they be allowed to buy each other out so that they can get bigger, which they say is necessary to better compete on the world stage. We have a scenario where already-massive media companies want to get even bigger so that they can face-off against similarly giant companies overseas. Such a scenario only has one outcome: the swallowing up, buying out and merging of competitors until, ultimately, only two global entities are left facing off against each other—and, one day, they themselves will ultimately want to merge. That is not a future that we should look forward to.
For our democracy to function properly, we need robust, independent and diverse voices that speak truth to power. In recent decades, we have seen a convergence of media that results not in speaking truth to power but in truth being manufactured by power. In Australia, Murdoch-owned titles account for nearly two-thirds, or 64.2 per cent, of metropolitan circulation newspapers; Fairfax-owned papers account for a further quarter, or 26.4 per cent. Some of these figures may be a little out of date. News Corporation and Fairfax, along with West Australian Newspapers, work together to create Australian Associated Press. Now, Australian Associated Press—the little AAP that you often see at the end of articles—distributes the news and then sells it onto other outlets, such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. So although much of the everyday mainstream news is drawn from AAP, all the privately-owned media outlets still compete with each other for that news The same players are creating the same news.
Rural and regional media, which is where my electorate is interested, is dominated by Rural Press Ltd, with significant holdings in all states and territories. Rural Press received a takeover offer from Fairfax in late 2006, and their merger was in 2007. The same arguments were being used back then: we need to get bigger and bigger and bigger to be able to compete. And we are still having those same arguments now.
In Australia, News Corporation, which is a United States company—it is a foreign-owned company—owns approximately 142 daily, Sunday, weekly, biweekly, triweekly newspapers. Some of them are free commuter papers. There are 102 suburban publications, which is my background. My background is as a newspaper editor for an independent title back in Western Australia, and our main competitor was News Corporation. And it is no fun, let me tell you, being an editor of an independent newspaper competing against a newspaper owned by a multinational. News Corp Australia publishes a nationally distributed newspaper in Australia, which is The Australian, and has a metro paper in each of the Australian cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin. It used to have a Sunday title in Western Australia but, of course, that has been bought out and merged with The West Australian, and it has a group of suburban newspapers across most of the capital cities.
News Corporation is not just a newspaper company; it publishes a further 30 magazine titles across Australia. It also has interests in digital media, news.com.au, one of the biggest news sites in the country; Business Spectator and Eureka Report, kidspot.com.au, taste.com.au and homelife.com.au. It has 50 per cent stakes in careerone.com.au and CarsGuide. It has a share in the real estate website, realestate.com.au. So not only is it a media company; it also has commercial interests outside media.
One of the issues with that is that when you are a media company and you own assets that are not media related, inherent conflicts of interest arise. Suddenly, the journalists are expected to report fairly and objectively on issues of commercial interest to their corporate owner. I think it is fair to say, when we have seen on the TV news, the cross-publication, the cross-promotion of commercial interests—we will see on a commercial broadcaster's news a story about something that relates to the commercial interests of the same company—that is not news; that is advertising. How can a journalist for a media company be expected to report fairly and accurately and objectively on an issue of commercial interest to their owner if it is of adverse interest to their owner?
Until the formation of News Corporation in 1979, News Limited, as it was known then, was the principal holding company for the business interests of Rupert Murdoch, who is now an American citizen. So what we are seeing is News Corporation, Fairfax and other media entities keen to merge. These corporations have already merged over the years; they are keen to merge further. Despite their previous mergers, they want to get bigger.
While I doubt that any owner these days, as they used to be, is on the phone to personally direct a certain editorial line—I know that is the sort of romantic notion that Rupert Murdoch is on the end of the phone down to the editors telling them what to write; I know that does not happen—but woe betide the editor or news director who runs an editorial agenda that is in conflict with the owner corporation's commercial objectives.
Is it any wonder as media platforms are being swallowed up by conglomerates that the editorial voice from those platforms increasingly reflect, not the values of the middle class from whence owners once came from, because when media companies and newspapers and radio stations were locally owned by local owners, those local owners were just normal people living amongst the community?
Instead, as media companies are owned by billionaires and multimillionaire CEOs, the views expressed in those conglomerates now mirror the interests of the one per cent—that is, the multimillionaires, the property speculators, the mining magnates, the industrialists—who the owners of these platforms consider their peers. In fact, in some cases, the billionaires and mining magnates sit on the boards of these companies and take ownership stakes in them. You have to wonder why a mining magnate would be so desperate to take an ownership stake in a television company.
Labor wants media assets in more hands not fewer. We want more voice not less. We want a diversity of opinion that reflects the plurality of our country not what reflects the view of a tiny but very wealthy—and elite and powerful—handful of owners. Labor does accept that the media landscape is rapidly changing. We do not have our heads stuck in the sand. Legislation does need to keep up with technology and new entrants, such as global digital competition and social media. Labor is supporting all but one of the measures in this bill, and we do not support the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule.
The two-out-of-three rule simply means that an owner cannot own any more than two media assets in a marketplace. It is designed to ensure that any one owner cannot completely dominate a particular market's media environment. Complete domination of the media environment is in no-one's interest except the owner of the media asset. The two-out-of-three rule is not a perfect rule but it is better than nothing—which is what the government would have us vote for. We do not need nothing there, we need something to protect the community interest.
Labor supports most of the measures in this bill, other than the two-out-of-three rule, because they are Labor's measures. For four years this government has done nothing on media reform and now it seeks to shamelessly plagiarise Labor's work and pass it off as its own. It was Labor that led the way on reforming broadcast licence fee relief, gambling advertising restrictions and funding to support the broadcasting of women's sport.
This bill is before the parliament today only because the minister, cynically, spied an opportunity with the Ten Network going into voluntary administration last week. He thought that he could box Labor in, that he could somehow use Ten's predicament to weave together an argument about the urgency of removing the two-out-of-three rule. Of all the reasons Ten gave for going into administration, ownership rules was not one of them—but licence with fee relief was. It was a Labor initiative, that this bill takes up and which Labor is supporting. In a statement to the market, Ten said:
TEN anticipates that after the changes to regulations anticipated to be tabled in Parliament tomorrow pass through the Parliamentary process, the reduction in licence costs for TEN in FY17 will be in the order of $22 million and, in FY18, $12 million.
Ten itself has stated that licence fee relief is important, but nowhere in its statements to the market has it said it needs a change in the ownership rules. Everyone knows that Ten has struggled for years against the Nine Network and the Ten Network. Their commercial situation has been compounded by the entry of digital channels, which have stuck their tongues into a finite pool of advertising dollars.
If the new digital players in Australia were offering robust and well-resourced journalism, we possibly would not be so steadfast about the two-out-of-three rule. The fact is, the new digital entrants, including the second and third free-to-air channels by the existing players, offer lots of content, but little if any of it is journalism—with the exception, of course, of ABC News 24.
Journalism is why Labor is so strong on the two-out-of-three rule. We all talk about the media industry but it is the journalism that we care deeply about. Journalism is a bedrock of our democracy and we need robust and independent journalism. When we have less of it and fewer voices, our democracy is worse off—
Mr Josh Wilson interjecting—
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL: And running down by public broadcasters, my colleague the member for Fremantle mentions. Labor has long supported licence fee relief. In government Labor provided licence fee relief on local content production in recognition of the impact of the global financial crisis, known as the global recession overseas. Those on the other side still manage to suffer from a collective amnesia on just how brutal the global recession was on the world economy, and they refuse to acknowledge that Labor's superior economic management, under my colleague the member for Lilley, during that time helped save this country from the brutal effects of that world recession. The relief that Labor offered at that time was also an acknowledgement of the increasing role of digital.
Labor supported licence fee reduction in last year's budget. The abolition of commercial broadcast licence fees recognises that the Australian media market has changed significantly since broadcasting licence fees were first introduced, with online and on-demand content fragmenting the market for media services and increasing competition for advertising. The government states this financial relief will enable broadcasters to better compete with online competitors, invest in their businesses and produce Australian content. This proposal has merit, and Labor proffered these arguments in favour of relief in 2016.
Labor notes that these changes are occurring in the context of the broader spectrum reform process, where the Department of Communications and the Arts and ACMA are working to implement the recommendations of the spectrum review over coming years, including the wholesale rewrite of the Radiocommunications Act. Further, the related tax bill introduces a new spectrum tax, estimated to raise around $40 million per annum, which ensures the Commonwealth gets a return on the use of radiofrequency spectrum. Given that a minority of broadcast licensees will be worse off under the new spectrum tax, there is also a five-year transitional support package.
We on this side of the House hold strong and consistent views on how this bill can and should move forward, and it is such a shame that the government has taken a ham-fisted approach to reform. Our shadow minister for communications tried time and again to get up-to-date briefings from the minister, but to no avail. We know he is a minister from the other place, but surely that is no excuse in itself for the gross incompetence on display. We tried last year, if the House remembers, to support the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule. We extended the hand of bipartisanship. But, to the dismay of industry and the dismay of Labor, the minister squibbed it, and the bill was pulled from the parliamentary agenda. It is back with us now only because the minister has spied a cynical opportunity to use Ten's misfortunes as a fig leaf for ramming through the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule. Labor will support this bill, but we will not support the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (10:32): The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 is a truly historic piece of legislation that deals once and for all with so many of the unresolved issues in the Australian media sector. The reality is that for many years—arguably decades—Australian media law has not reflected their reality of the Australian media industry. There have been a wide range of people calling for reform, and this bill delivers it. A few years ago, back in 2014, I wrote a number of articles in newspapers on this topic, calling for the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent rule, and it is very good to see that incorporated in this process.
The problem is that those opposite are applying a 1987 mentality to a 2017 problem, because, by seeking to oppose the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule, they seek to condemn Australian media to irrelevance over time. What is happening in the Australian media industry is not a matter of subjective interpretation; it is something we can see with our own eyes. We see the newspaper industry under extreme pressure. We see the closure of suburban and regional newspapers. We see very large-scale redundancies, particularly in the newspaper industry. We also see extreme pressure in other parts of the media sector, none more so than the regional television market, where you look at companies like Prime, Australia's largest regional media broadcaster, whose value has declined by more than 90 per cent in the last decade. That is a reflection of what is happening in the media sector and why these laws need to change.
What is happening is that digital is increasingly taking over. That is a reality of the market. If consumers want to visit digital platforms and if advertisers want to advertise there, then that is absolutely appropriate and so be it. What we need to do is ensure that Australian media operators are not competing with digital with one hand tied behind their back. But that is what Labor says they should do. Labor says that a newspaper company should not be able to merge so as to own newspaper, radio and television in one market, because they would be far too powerful if they were to do this, in Labor's assertion. But think about this, Deputy Speaker: it is a very unusual situation where an industry can be so weak that it is effectively in the process of going out of business, which is what is happening in the print newspaper sector around the world. It is so weak that it is no longer a viable industry at all in the medium term—but so strong, according to Labor, that they cannot be allowed to merge with other companies so as to have the economies of scale which will enable them to continue to produce the quality and independent journalism that is so important to our nation.
What happens in an environment where those companies cannot merge and cannot get those economies of scale is that the march of Google and Facebook continues on unabated. Every year they grow at double-digit rates, and every year the print media sector, particularly, continues to struggle. SMI, which is a data-gatherer in the media sector, said that newspaper advertising in 2016 was down by 14 per cent; regional newspaper advertising was down by five per cent; and community titles were down by eight per cent. This been going on year after year since about 2007 or 2008. Those opposite say: 'Just ignore all that. Just pretend that everything is fine in the newspaper industry. Pretend that everything is fine in television, particularly in the regional television industry.' They say we should not enable those industries to take sensible measures to create the strength they need so they can actually compete with these massive international platforms. So the only people who are cheering at the outcome that those opposite propose are, in fact, global international digital platforms—because, by constraining the domestic media sector in competing with those digital platforms, those opposite would seek to do the work of those digital platforms, to the detriment of our domestic media sector. That is a massive issue. It is an extraordinarily large issue.
It is very important to remember here that if you abolish the two-out-of-three rule, enabling newspapers, radio and television to merge, should they seek to do so, you still maintain the ACCC's capacity to block mergers. The fact that the two-out-of-three rule does not exist anymore does not mean that every merger is automatically approved. The ACCC looks at mergers in every market in Australia and asks, 'Is this going to have a negative impact on competition and outcomes in this market?' And if the ACCC has concerns about a particular merger, they can stop it. They do that now and they have done that in numerous circumstances over the years, and they could do that, should they have a particular concern about a proposed media merger, in the future. But the two-out-of-three rule acts as an artificial barrier which means that media companies do not even get to the point of putting forward a deal for the ACCC to consider, because it is unlawful. That is a very bad situation, and it is very materially constraining our media sector.
Deputy Speaker, when you think about the Australian media industry, agreement and camaraderie are not the first two things that would come to mind, so it is very notable that support for the government's proposal is quite overwhelming. We have all the regional television broadcasters, the metropolitan broadcasters, the key newspaper companies and the radio companies—basically everyone in the industry—acknowledging that this package needs to happen, if we want to have a modern, competitive media industry that has the economic capacity to grow, to compete, to employ journalists and to employ not just the journalists but all the other people who are involved in our media sector.
It was interesting to hear the comment from Ian Audsley, the CEO of Prime Media Group, when he testified before a Senate committee last year and spoke on this issue of diversity. He said:
There has been a lot of talk about the threat to diversity if the two-out-of-three rule is repealed. We would argue that there is greater threat to media diversity if the media reform bill is not passed because the risk is that more journalists will lose their jobs in regional Australia, more newsrooms will be faced with scaling down and, in the worst case scenario, some businesses may close.
That was from the CEO of the largest regional television company in Australia. But Labor says that the entire industry is wrong, that everyone who follows the industry and who has analysed this issue is wrong, but that the shadow communications minister and her caucus colleagues are right. I guess there is a theoretical chance that those three or four people could be right, and anyone else who has any understanding of this industry is all wrong—it seems unlikely, but that is the position they maintain.
It is very important that people understand that the position those opposite maintain is one that works absolutely in the favour of international digital platforms that do not employ substantial numbers of people in Australia. Those bodies would look at Labor's opposition to this bill and give it a big tick. They would say that that is okay and that is going to make it harder for those domestic media competitors who are already struggling to compete against us. Labor's policy says: let's create a situation that is good for those massive international platforms with limited local employees, but bad for the companies that employ thousands and thousands of Australians and, ultimately, bad for diversity because, by stopping these companies from competing on their own two feet, it is going to stop them from growing into the future. It is a very bad position taken by Labor, and anyone who has looked at this industry seriously understands that its position is completely untenable.
There are a number of other important reforms in this bill, which I want to touch on. The 75 per cent rule is one of the most ridiculous rules, frankly, not just in media regulation but that one could come across pretty much anywhere in government. Basically what this says at the moment is that if you own a television network and you want to broadcast content to Australians, if you do it over the internet, that is fine. You can reach 100 per cent of people and there is no problem—you put it online and 100 per cent of people can be reached, that is fine. You can also do a deal, if you are a metropolitan broadcaster, with a regional broadcaster, and say that the same piece of news content will reach 100 per cent of people via the broadcast spectrum. The only thing you cannot do is reach 100 per cent of people through the broadcast spectrum through the ownership of one company. And that does not make any sense because, presumably, the original intention of the 75 per cent rule was to say that the government of the day did not want any particular piece of content to reach 100 per cent of the community, particularly news, but that has been happening for decades anyway via the broadcast spectrum. That is because the regional broadcaster simply redistributes exactly the same news content as the metros, so they are already reaching 100 per cent. And now, with internet technology, of course, one company can reach 100 per cent of the community, and that is fine too. So what this law simply seeks to do is to say that 100 per cent of people could be reached via the broadcast spectrum. That makes perfect sense, and it is good that those opposite support it.
Broadcast license fees are also a very outmoded part of the Australian media regulation landscape and, effectively, operate as something of a super profits tax. Many decades ago, the government effectively said that a broadcast licence is a very valuable thing so, in addition to paying company tax, they had to pay a very substantial percentage of their gross revenue to the government. That has become more and more anachronistic as time has gone by, and the Australian licence fee provisions are way out of step with the rest of the world. Sensibly, this bill seeks to abolish licence fees. What it does say is that there is a public asset which broadcasters use, and that is spectrum. Spectrum is one of those fancy terms, but all it means is the airwaves. Broadcasters use the airwaves and that is an asset which is, in a sense, regulated by government. What the government says is: 'We will charge a fee for the access of spectrum and that is appropriate. Other people pay fees for access to spectrum, but we will no longer charge this very excessive broadcast licence fee.' That is entirely appropriate.
Another important reform in this bill concerns the broadcast of advertising related to gambling during children's viewing hours in sports broadcast. I think most of us, as members of parliament, would have had concerns expressed by members of the community about advertising for gambling products either during sporting events or at the half-time break in sporting events and so on. That has been a real concern because people want to be able to watch a sporting event with their kids without having a conversation about what it means that a player is $9 to score the first try or whatever the particular product on offer might be. So, sensibly, the government is saying that during those sporting broadcasts—five minutes before and five minutes after—there can no longer be gambling advertising. That is entirely appropriate.
The government is also moving on the antisiphoning list. This list has existed for a long time and is somewhat out of date. There are a number of events on the antisiphoning list that are very rarely seen on free-to-air or, if they are seen on free-to-air at all, generally by very small audiences. What this bill will do is take off a number of events from the antisiphoning list while leaving in place a whole range of all the key events in areas such as the AFL, NRL, cricket and so on. Again, it is a sensible reform.
Finally, the bill provides for a $30 million package for subscription television to assist it in investing in women's and niche sports on subscription TV. Women's sport is only about seven per cent of all sports broadcast in 2013. Through providing these additional funds, the government will foster and encourage greater broadcasting of women's sport on television. That is a good thing and it is good that that has broad support. This is an exceptional bill, and I commend it to the House.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (10:47): Thank you to the members who have contributed to this debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017, which contain a number of key elements of the government's broadcasting and content reform package. It is a particular pleasure to follow, in this debate, the member for Banks, who, of course, is a former senior executive in the media and broadcasting sectors and indeed in the online and technology sector. He brings particular perspectives and expertise to this debate.
The government is committed to ensuring that Australia has a viable media sector and that diversity continues to thrive in our cities and in our regions. Together, the bills before the House this morning will abolish broadcasting licence fees and datacasting charges and introduce a new spectrum tax. They will also remove regulatory barriers and burdens that achieve little from a public policy perspective and undermine the sustainability of Australian media organisations. At the same time, the measures will ensure that independent sources of news, current affairs and similar programming continue to be available to all Australians, particularly those in regional areas.
This package has the unanimous support of all sectors of the media industry and they consider it to be vital to their longevity and viability. It is the Turnbull government's firm view that the proposed measures be considered as a whole to enable Australia's media industry to compete in an increasingly fragmented and global media environment.
Ultimately, the reforms contained in these bills strike the right balance between community concerns, public policy imperatives and industry interests. Outdated broadcasting licence fees will be abolished and replaced with a more sensible spectrum tax that recognises the value of what is, at the end of the day, a public resource. Ineffective and constricting media control and ownership rules will be repealed but with important protections put in place for the provision of local content. The antisiphoning scheme and list will be updated and rationalised while ensuring that iconic and nationally significant sporting events continue to be freely available to Australian audiences.
The 75 per cent audience reach rule is antiquated and redundant in a digital media environment. It restricts commercial television broadcasters from optimising the scale of their operations and does nothing in a practical sense to support media diversity. The two-out-of-three rule, which prevents a person from controlling more than two of the three regulated media platforms—commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers—also does little to support diversity in a contemporary environment. The rule was developed prior to the era of smartphones, social media and streaming services. It restricts traditional media companies from optimising the scale and scope of their operations and from accessing capital and management expertise in other media sectors, while their competitors, operating mostly online, face no such restrictions. The government rejects concerns that removal of the two-out-of-three rule will reduce media diversity.
The government certainly agrees that, in any healthy democracy, a wide range of perspectives and voices are necessary to inform public discussion and debate. However, it is important to recognise that the government is not seeking to change media regulation in a way that would jeopardise media diversity. In fact, in action by this parliament on these antiquated rules represents the greatest threat to media diversity. Important protections remain. Media transactions will continue to be subject to the remaining control and ownership rules in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The five-four rule provides that at least five independent media groups must at all times be present in metropolitan commercial radio licence areas and four such groups in regional commercial licence areas. The licence limits provide that a person may control only one television licence and a maximum of two commercial radio licences in an applicable licence area. Mergers and acquisitions in the media sector will also continue to be subject to Australia's general competition regulation under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
As I have stated, the strength of these bills is that they will usher in an integrated suite of reforms. They have the united support of the media industry. The various sectors have been able to put aside their individual differences and immediate interests to look forward to the good of the industry as a whole. They acknowledge that these reforms strike a balance between ensuring our media industry can achieve the scale and scope to compete in a global media environment as well ensuring that Australians continue to access a diversity of high-quality news and information services.
The media industry has worked together and with the government to craft this package and to support it with a united voice. Now is the time for the parliament to do the same and to take the opportunity to enable the Australian media industry to move into the 21st century. I call on all members to support the bills.
The SPEAKER: The question is this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [10:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:03): by leave—I move:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column headed "Provisions"), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", substitute "Schedule 1".
(2) Schedule 2, page 5 (line 1) to page 6 (line 14), omit the Schedule.
This is Groundhog Day! When I was eight months pregnant, we were here moving this exact same amendment to extract the two-out-of-three rule repeal from this. My daughter is now six months old. She is meeting all of her developmental milestones. Yet, this government in four years—a big, fat nothing has been achieved in this space. I will not take lectures from those opposite wanting to talk about Labor being stuck in the past with a 1980s mentality when we have those opposite building a 19th-century copper broadband network. We will not take lectures from those opposite.
Here we have a minister who is so lazy. He says all the facts are known. He completely ignores the ACMA's 'Broken concepts' and 'Enduring concepts' papers. He completely ignores the fact that we had, in the convergence review, the very specific recommendation that we have public interest safeguards inserted for media mergers into the general competition law. But, no, the government ignore all of that. Instead, they seek to ram this through. They say they are getting rid of diversity in order to save it. That is not only the most circular argument but an absolutely ridiculous argument. Labor will stand up for diversity in this parliament and in the other place.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (11:05): This package of broadcasting legislation is about employment and jobs in the Australian media industry, and the Turnbull government is standing up for jobs, with a package which is unanimously supported across the media sector. What did the chief executive of Channel 10 have to say?
… it is blindingly obvious that these pre-internet era laws are now achieving the opposite of what they were intended to do. They are now working against a strong, viable and diverse media sector, and they must go.
I remind the House that the Ten Network is in administration. There are 1,400 jobs at risk. The Turnbull government is standing up for jobs. Labor have got their heads stuck in the sand. They ignore the fact that the media sector is exposed to global competition through the internet. They ignore the fact that the entire Australian media sector is asking simply to be able to compete on a level playing field with global media companies. They ignore the fact that these global companies can supply services to every Australian online without being constrained by the outdated restrictive requirements in the present Australian media legislation. That is why the Turnbull government is putting forward these amendments, including critically the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule.
This package is a holistic package. All elements of it must be supported. The Turnbull government is standing up for jobs in the media sector. It is standing up for the Australian media sector. It is supported by the entire Australian media sector. These amendments must be rejected.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The House divided. [11:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (11:16): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
I speak briefly to the motion to note that the Labor Party voted against the entirety of this bill on the second reading, notwithstanding their statement that they supported every aspect of it, except the two-out-of-three amendment. I do draw the House's attention to that fact.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be read a third time.
The House divided. [11:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (11:24): The Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 is an important bill which supports the arrangements in the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, and particularly the provisions in relation to spectrum fees. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (11:26): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 3) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (11:27): The Labor Party supports this bill and we support its expeditious passage through this place and the other place. I note that the government has provided a full briefing to the opposition, which the opposition appreciates, and we understand the reasons why the government has moved in this direction. ASIC has discovered that certain delegations being relied upon did not meet particular requirements under the ASIC Act, leading to a defect in the employment of staff and consultants, in some instances, and the potential for some legal uncertainty.
It is best that the House and the Senate remedy this situation where the functions and powers of affected staff members included coercive powers such as compelling the production of documents that may then have been used in evidence in court proceedings, so a range of outcomes under those acts and other laws ASIC administers may have been open to legal challenge. The bill before us today is to validate certain agreements to employ or engage ASIC staff that were purportedly made before the end of 9 March 2017, going back for quite some period, over many years, and to provide a legal basis for the exercise, by affected staff members, of delegated functions and powers of ASIC.
The amendments also deal with the consequences of validating those agreements for the purposes of provisions of the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act dealing with the transition from the old corporations and ASIC legislation. ASIC, of course, plays a vital role in our economy. It is vital that the decisions and actions taken by senior ASIC staff over a considerable period of years have the force of law and be respected. The opposition appreciates how this situation arose. We support the government's efforts to remedy the situation and accordingly we will vote for this bill in both houses.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (11:29): Firstly, I would like to thank members who have contributed to this debate, including the shadow Treasurer just now. In summing up, the bill makes technical amendments to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, ASIC Act, and the Corporations Act 2001. The amendments respond to the recent discovery of the invalid delegations of power to a small number of purported ASIC employees. These invalid delegations were, largely, due to an administrative error that occurred in 1999.
These invalid delegations created a risk that action taken under the purported delegation will be challenged on the basis that it was not legally valid action. The bill eliminates these risks by retrospectively amending the ASIC Act and the Corporations Act to deem those affected staff as always having been validly appointed. The bill will have no practical impact on ASIC's current or former staff but resolves any legal uncertainties or risks, and with that I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (11:31): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack for Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (11:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
On behalf of the government and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection the government takes its role to protect the Australian community very seriously. For the protection of the Australian community, it is essential that a government can take action where noncitizens in Australia do not abide by the law and who engage in criminal activity.
It is a privilege for noncitizens to enter and stay in Australia—not a right. The Australian community expects that the Australian government can and should have the ability to cancel visas of those who do not abide by Australian laws.
In late 2014, this government strengthened the character provisions of the Migration Act, making it mandatory to cancel a visa if a noncitizen does not pass the character test. Since those changes, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has cancelled the visas of over 2,600 noncitizen criminals, including more than 140 organised crime figures.
The purpose of this bill is to uphold the visa cancellations, and application refusals, on character grounds of certain noncitizens who have committed crimes in Australia and who pose a risk to the Australian community.
Specifically, this bill amends the Migration Act 1958(the act) to preserve existing section 501 character decisions which have relied on information that is protected from disclosure under section 503A of the act.
These amendments will not apply to cases where people have had a visa application refused or a visa cancelled based on information protected from disclosure, and they have had their cases either fully heard, or finally determined, by a court before the amendments come into operation.
Section 503A of the act protects information from disclosure when it is provided to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection by gazetted law enforcement or intelligence agencies to support a section 501 character visa application refusal or cancellation decision.
This protects the information from disclosure to a court, tribunal, a parliament or parliamentary committee or any other body or person.
The measures in this bill are in response to current proceedings in the High Court of Australia, in which the validity of section 503A is being challenged.
In practice, law enforcement and intelligence agencies will only provide information to the department because it can be protected from disclosure.
Successful strategies to counter crime necessitate that agencies like the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Agency and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) are able to share information on the activities of non-citizen criminals with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, while their intelligence and sources remain protected.
Protected information has informed many character decisions involving, for example, outlaw motorcycle gang members. Without the information supplied by the intelligence agencies, these criminals may have kept their visas and have been free to continue their illicit activities.
The minister at the table, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and the government make no apologies for using every means at their disposal to keep the Australian community safe. That is our No. 1 priority.
Should the High Court find any part of section 503A invalid, there is a real risk that such an outcome could result in several non-citizens of serious character concern being released from immigration detention into the Australian community, or being allowed to return to Australia where they are currently offshore.
These would present an unacceptable risk to the Australian community and would understandably undermine public confidence in the integrity of Australia's migration framework.
The amendments in this bill proactively address the risk to the safety of Australians and reflect the government's and the Australian community's low tolerance for criminal behaviour by those who are given the privilege of holding a visa to enter into and stay in Australia.
All members who support tough measures to protect the Australian community from non-citizens who break the law should support this bill.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (11:38): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government is committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of Australia's welfare system. This bill introduces a package of measures announced in the 2017-18 budget that act on this commitment by better targeting student payments. This bill:
restricts the Relocation Scholarship to students relocating within Australia and studying in Australia;
changes the rates of the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment to better align those payments with study loads; and
ensures the payment of pensioner education supplement aligns with when students are engaged in study and not during study breaks or holidays.
Several supplementary payments within the social security payments system are directed to students and are designed to encourage people to undertake further education and training to enhance their employment and career prospects. However, these supplementary payments should be better targeted and designed for a specific purpose to ensure that they are reflective of students' circumstances and the intent of the payments.
Relocation Scholarship payments
From 1 January 2018, or the first 1 January or 1 July following royal assent, this bill will restrict the Relocation Scholarship to students relocating within Australia and students studying in Australia. This measure is consistent with the simplification of the payment system and aims to streamline the delivery of the Relocation Scholarship and better reflect its policy intent.
The Relocation Scholarship primarily assists students from regional and remote areas of Australia moving away from home to study. This is in recognition that regional and remote students face additional costs in pursuing tertiary education and have much lower participation rates in higher education than students from major cities areas of Australia.
The Relocation Scholarship is a supplementary payment for dependent and some independent youth allowance and Abstudy living allowance recipients who are required to live away from home to undertake higher education studies. The scholarship commenced in 2010 and is an annual lump-sum payment.
The rate of the Relocation Scholarship paid to qualified students depends on their circumstances. In 2017, students receive $4,376 in their first year of study and $1,094 in each following year. In recognition of the additional costs of study, students from regional and remote areas receive $2,189 in their second and third years of study. These amounts are indexed in January each year.
The legislation and administration of the Relocation Scholarship is complex. At present, students with a parental home or usual place of residence overseas are eligible for the Relocation Scholarship regardless of whether they are relocating to a major city of Australia or to a regional or remote area.
Continuing to pay the Relocation Scholarship to students moving away from an overseas home to Australia is not consistent policy with the purpose of the scholarship, which is to assist regional and remote students with additional costs that they face. It is also not consistent policy to pay the Relocation Scholarship to students who relocate to study part of their Australian course overseas.
Under this measure students will no longer be eligible for the Relocation Scholarship where each of their parents' homes is overseas or where the student's usual place of residence is located overseas. Students studying a component of their Australian degree overseas will also no longer be eligible for the Relocation Scholarship while they are overseas.
Where a student's parents return to Australia to live or the student returns to Australia to continue studying after undertaking part of their course overseas, the student's eligibility for the Relocation Scholarship will be retested and, depending on the circumstances, the student may become eligible for the scholarship.
Youth allowance recipients receiving the Relocation Scholarship prior to the commencement of this measure with a home overseas will continue to receive the Relocation Scholarship after this date if, on the day they started their current course, their home was overseas.
Students studying part of their Australian course overseas will have their qualification for the Relocation Scholarship retested after this measure commences, including students who had previously received a Relocation Scholarship whilst studying overseas.
Commonwealth supported students who undertake part of their Australian course overseas often relocate for short periods of time—for example, on exchange for a semester, someone may be able to access the Overseas Higher Education Loan Program (OS-HELP) loans to assist with airfares, accommodation or other travel or study expenses. In addition, youth allowance recipients undertaking overseas study as part of their full-time Australian course may be paid for the entire period of their overseas study as long as the study can be credited towards their Australian course. This measure will not affect students' ability to access these forms of assistance.
This measure will also apply to Abstudy living allowance recipients through the Abstudy Policy Manual.
In 2016, approximately 23,000 students received a Relocation Scholarship. It is estimated that fewer than 300 students per year with parental homes overseas will no longer be eligible for the Relocation Scholarship under this measure, and fewer than 150 students per year studying overseas will no longer be able to access the Relocation Scholarship.
This measure is estimated to result in savings of approximately $1.9 million over the forward estimates.
Pensioner education supplement and education entry payment
From 1 January 2018 or the first 1 January or 1 July following royal assent, this bill will align the education entry payment and pensioner education supplement payment rates with the actual study loads undertaken by eligible students, with four payment tiers introduced for each payment. Additionally, the pensioner education supplement will only be paid during the periods that students are actually studying.
Introduced in 1987, the pensioner education supplement is a fortnightly supplement to assist income support recipients with some of the ongoing costs of full-time or part-time study so that they may obtain skills and qualifications to participate in the labour market. The pensioner education supplement may be paid to eligible people receiving:
Carer payment
Disability support pension
Newstart allowance as a single principal carer
Parenting payment single
Special benefit (as a single parent)
Widow allowance
Widow B pension
Wife pension, if the partner receives disability support pension
Youth allowance (job seeker) as a single principal carer, or
certain payments under the Veterans' Entitlements Act.
It is currently paid at two rates, $62.40 or $31.20 per fortnight, depending on an individual's primary income support payment and study load.
The education entry payment was introduced in 1993 to provide a lump sum payment to eligible income support recipients to assist with some of the up-front costs of education and training. Payment is made each 12 months or each calendar year, depending on the primary social security payment being received. Recipients may receive the education entry payment as well as the pensioner education supplement.
This bill will align the rates of the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment with the amount of study actually undertaken. Irrespective of their base income support payment, eligible students will be paid a pensioner education supplement of $62.40 per fortnight if they are undertaking a study load that is at least 76 per cent of the normal amount of full-time study. The rate of payment will then reduce incrementally to $46.80, then to $31.20 and then to $15.60 each fortnight to align with the minimum reduced and part-time study loads of 51 per cent, 26 per cent and 25 per cent respectively.
These same levels of study will also be applied to the education entry payment. The current payment of $208 a year will continue for students studying at least 76 per cent of the normal amount of full-time study. The lump sum payment would then be reduced incrementally to $156, $104 or $52 to align with reduced and part-time minimum study loads of 51 per cent, and 26 per cent and 25 per cent respectively.
These changes to the rates of the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment will not impact on a recipient's primary income support payment.
The new rates of the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment are fair and equitable. Students undertaking part-time study loads do not generally incur the same study costs as those studying full-time. It is appropriate for the rates of the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment to reflect this fact. In addition, the pensioner education supplement will be paid only when a recipient is actually engaged in study. That is the time when study costs are actually incurred.
Changes to the pensioner education supplement and education entry payment are estimated to result in savings of approximately $94.7 million over the forward estimates.
By better targeting student payments to ensure they are reflective of a student's circumstances, and the intent of the payments, the government will improve the long-term sustainability of Australia's welfare system so that it remains available for those who need it long into the future.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (11:48): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 introduces four measures designed to improve the integrity and sustainability of the welfare payments system by reinforcing the residency based nature of Australia's welfare system and encouraging greater self-reliance where it is fair and reasonable to do so. These measures include:
enhancements to residency requirements for pensioners;
changes to the payment of the pension supplement for permanent departures overseas and temporary absences;
consistent treatment for families receiving family tax benefit part A; and
an increase to the liquid assets waiting period to increase self-reliance.
The government is committed to ensuring our welfare system is fair and sustainable so that we can continue to support those who need it the most both now and into the future. Together the measures in this bill are estimated to improve the budget bottom line by around $800 million over the forward estimates, and they will contribute to the government restricting real growth in government payments to 1.9 per cent.
While the Australian welfare system is already highly targeted, prudent and reasonable changes, such as those contained in this bill, are required to maintain the stability and sustainability of the system in the longer term. Without sensible decisions to keep spending under reasonable control, the next generation of Australians will be left with more debt to repay and higher taxes.
Enhanced Residency Requirement for Australian Pensions
From 1 July 2018, the first measure in this bill will strengthen the residency requirements for the Age Pension and Disability Support Pension (DSP).
Currently, to qualify for the age pension or DSP, a person must be an Australian resident for a total of 10 years, with at least five of those years being continuous. However, there is no requirement for those 10 years to be during a person's working life—that is, between 16 years of age and age pension age—or for a person to demonstrate any level self-sufficiency during that time.
The current residency requirements are generous when compared to the qualifying contribution periods required to receive a pension in other countries. A number of OECD countries require greater than 10-years contributions in order to receive even a part pension.
Under this measure, a person who qualifies for the age pension or DSP will be required to have 10 years continuous Australian residence and either:
five years of this residence during their working life; or
greater than five cumulative years residence while not in receipt of an activity tested income support payment.
Where a person does not meet either of these requirements, they will need to have 15 years continuous Australian residence.
Australia's social security system is based on the principles of need and residency. This measure reinforces and strengthens the residence connection required before a person can qualify for the age pension or DSP by increasing the continuous period a person must be an Australian resident.
The community reasonably expects that those choosing to migrate to Australia should be self-sufficient to the greatest extent possible.
Existing exemptions to the residency requirements will remain, such as for humanitarian entrants or, in relation to DSP, where a person incurs a continuing inability to work after arrival in Australia. Access to special benefit will also remain for people who are not eligible for another payment and who experience financial hardship.
Those people who qualify for the age pension or DSP on or after 1 July 2018 will need to meet the new residency rules. However, people granted age pension or DSP prior to 1 July 2018 who subsequently lose payment will not be affected by this measure if they later seek to return to payment. They will continue to be assessed under the pre-July 2018 residence qualification rules.
Ninety-eight per cent of people applying for the age pension or DSP will be unaffected by this measure. Most people claiming age pension will already have sufficient residency because they were born in Australia and/or lived here for many years prior to reaching age pension age.
In relation to DSP, the vast majority of recipients are eligible for an exemption from the residence requirements due to suffering their continuing inability to work after migrating to Australia.
This measure is expected to result in savings of $119.1 million over the forward estimates.
Changes to the payment of the Pension Supplement for permanent departures overseas and temporary absences
From 1 January 2018, the second measure in the bill will cease payment of the basic amount of the pension supplement for recipients outside of Australia after six weeks for temporary absences from Australia or immediately if the recipient has permanently departed Australia.
The pension supplement is designed to alleviate the cost of living pressures for income support recipients living in Australia. As part of the pension reform package in September 2009, the pension supplement combined into a single payment the value of what as then the telephone allowance, utilities allowance, pharmaceutical allowance and the GST supplement.
The basic amount of the pension supplement is equivalent to the former GST supplement which was introduced in 2000 to compensate recipients for increases in the costs of living as a result of the GST.
The basic amount of the pension supplement is currently $23.00 per fortnight for singles and $37.80 per fortnight combined for couples (as at 20 March 2017).
Currently, if a recipient goes overseas, their pension supplement is reduced to the basic amount after six weeks temporary absence from Australia, or immediately for permanent departures.
Under this measure, no pension supplement will be paid if a recipient has been overseas temporarily for six weeks or has permanently left Australia. The basic rate of pension will continue to be paid after six weeks temporary absence, or immediately on permanent departure.
Recipients of the basic amount of the pension supplement who are overseas permanently when the measure commences will cease to receive the pension supplement from that date. Recipients who are overseas temporarily will be subject to the six-week rule from date of departure.
The basic amount of the pension supplement generally represents only a small proportion of a person's full rate of income support and was designed to assist with the cost of living in Australia. There is no economic reason to continue to compensate recipients for the impact of the GST while they are overseas, for any time longer than a short-term absence.
Income support recipients who are outside of Australia for more than six weeks, or who leave Australia permanently, are not likely to be impacted by the Australian goods and services tax, and therefore it is no longer appropriate to continue to provide those people with the pension supplement basic amount.
Again, this measure reinforces the residence based nature of the Australian social security system and contributes to the ongoing sustainability of the social welfare system as a whole. It also reflects the government's view that payment of taxpayer-funded income support while people are overseas should generally be limited to short-term absences.
It is recognised that recipients who travel overseas for short periods may have ongoing financial commitments in Australia; however, six weeks is considered a reasonable period of time for these costs to be partially offset by the Australian taxpayer. This change will align the pension supplement with the portability arrangements for most other income support payments, which cease at six weeks. On 1 January 2013 portability periods for most working age payments reduced from 13 to six weeks and family tax benefit part A portability was reduced to six weeks on 1 July 2016.
This measure is expected to result in savings of $150.2 million over the forward estimates.
Consistent treatment for families receiving family tax benefit p art A
With respect to consistent treatment for families receiving family tax benefit part A, from 1 July 2018, the third measure in the bill will introduce more consistent income testing of family tax benefit part A payments for higher income families. This will help to ensure that these payments are targeted to those families most in need.
Presently, there are two different approaches to income testing for higher income families receiving family tax benefit part A, with the test that results in the higher rate paid being applied.
The first test is known as the maximum rate income test. It reduces the maximum rate by 20c for each dollar over what is known as the low income free area (currently $51,903).
The second test is known as the basic rate income test. It reduces the basic rate by 30c for each dollar over the higher income free area (currently $94,316).
From 1 July 2018, the income test taper for the first test (the maximum rate income test) would increase from 20c to 30c for each dollar beyond the higher income free area (presently at $94,316). This will bring it into line with families assessed under the base rate income test, who are presently subject to a 30c taper.
The maximum rate income test taper will remain at 20c in the dollar for the assessment of all income between the lower income free area and the higher income free area.
This change will ensure that all families, whether they are assessed under the base rate or the maximum rate, are treated equally once their income exceeds $94,316.
This change will only affect higher income families, who receive a lower rate of payment than lower income families, and are better equipped to absorb the effects of the changes.
This measure will improve the sustainability of the family payments system over the long term, while continuing to provide assistance to families in need.
The measure is expected to result in savings of $415 million over the forward estimates.
Increase to the liquid assets waiting period to increase self-reliance
Finally, with respect to increases to the liquid assets waiting period designed to increase self-reliance: the final measure in this bill will increase the maximum liquid assets waiting period from 13 to 26 weeks for new income support claimants from 20 September 2018.
The liquid assets waiting period is the period of time that a person claiming Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, youth allowance or Austudy is expected to use their own liquid assets—such as cash, bank deposits or shares—for their own self-support, before they can begin receiving a payment.
The liquid assets waiting period is a longstanding feature of the payments system. It helps to ensure that people with the means to support themselves do so for a period, before relying on the taxpayer funding for income support.
Presently, a liquid assets waiting period applies if a person's liquid assets are equal to or they exceed:
$5,500 for single people with no dependent children, or
$11,000 for couples and people with dependent children.
Presently, the liquid assets waiting period may be one to 13 weeks, depending on the amount of cash or other liquid assets the person has. The length of the waiting period increases by one week for every $500 held above the threshold for single people with no children or $1,000 for couples and people with children.
For example, a single person with no children and $5,500 in liquid assets would serve a one week liquid assets waiting period; a person with $6,000 would serve two weeks.
Presently, the maximum liquid assets waiting period is capped at 13 weeks. The maximum waiting period applies if a person's liquid assets are equal to or above $11,500 if they are single with no children, or $23,000 if they are partnered or have children.
The maximum length of the liquid assets waiting period was set at 13 weeks in 1997 and has not changed since then. By contrast, the average level of liquid assets held by claimants has risen very considerably.
In 2015-16, the liquid assets held on average by a person serving the maximum 13-week waiting period was in the order of $63,000. This indicates that many claimants have a greater capacity to support themselves than the current liquid assets waiting period recognises.
Under this measure, the maximum length of the liquid assets waiting period would be extended to a cap of 26 weeks.
This is designed to require those with greater means to support themselves for longer before receiving a taxpayer funded payment. It ensures that the liquid assets waiting period better reflects the current profile of claimants and their capacity to support themselves. It also better targets access to payment to those who have limited other means of support and are more in need of immediate assistance.
Under this change, the new maximum liquid assets waiting period will apply to:
a single person with more than $18,000 in liquid assets, and
a partnered person or a single person with dependent children with more than $36,000.
Claims lodged on or after 20 September 2018 will be subject to the new maximum length for the liquid assets waiting period. Claimants already serving a liquid assets waiting period on 20 September 2018, however, will not have their waiting period extended.
Only the maximum length of the liquid assets waiting period is changing. The thresholds at which the liquid assets waiting period applies will stay the same, at $5,500 for singles with no children and $11,000 for others. These thresholds ensure that people are able to retain an appropriate level of savings to meet the costs of finding and securing work, as well as any unexpected expenses that may arise.
The existing range of exemptions from the liquid assets waiting period will remain in place, including for people who experience severe financial hardship through having incurred reasonable or unavoidable expenditure. This ensures that people can still access income support if their financial circumstances change and they are no longer able to support themselves.
As students often work for a period before commencing study to earn money which is saved for use during the semester on major expenses, full-time students claiming youth allowance or Austudy will still be able to reduce their liquid assets by certain allowable deductions directly related to their course of study. This ensures that students are able to retain the savings they need to pay for their studies.
It is also important to note that superannuation assets are exempt from the liquid assets waiting period and therefore these changes will not impact the resources of older Australians set aside to support themselves during retirement.
This measure is expected to result in savings of $138.5 million over the forward estimates.
Conclusion
Collectively, the measures in the bill will make sensible and necessary changes to safeguard the long-term sustainability of our welfare payments system while still ensuring appropriate support for those who need it, and, on that basis, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposal and Other Measures) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hawke.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (12:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposal and Other Measures) Bill 2017 contains a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. These amendments will assist Australian business and consumers and will further enhance the operation of certain aspects of the act.
Firstly, the bill will incorporate Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2017 into the act, ensuring that the correct customs duty rate of 'Free' is legislated for tariff subheading 6907.30.10, which applies to certain mosaic tiles. This amendment will ensure that Australian businesses have certainty about customs duty rates applied to these goods.
Secondly, the bill will extend the concessional arrangements for imports of automotive prototypes and components. Currently, the concession provided for by item 39 in schedule 4 of the act is only available to motor vehicle manufactures. The amendments contained in this bill will extend these arrangements to include automotive service providers to support research and development by the automotive industry.
Thirdly, the bill will remove the $12,000 special customs duty on used and second-hand motor vehicles. The special duty is rarely applied as importers are able to seek an exemption under item 37 in schedule 4 of the act. The amendment will remove some of the red tape that consumers face when importing a used or second-hand motor vehicle from 1 January 2018.
Finally, the bill will make a number of amendments to improve the usability of the act. The bill will simplify the classification of certain machining centres, realign Australia's classification of the chemical paraquat dichloride with international practice and make minor formatting amendments to a number of tariff subheadings. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): 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.
Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hawke.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (12:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017is an omnibus package of amendments to the Migration Act 1958, targeted at deregulating the migration advice industry.
The bill contains six measures, which I will discuss in greater detail.
Schedule 1: Australian legal practitioners providing immigration assistance (OMARA Review recommendation 1)
Schedule 1 to the bill will give effect to recommendation 1 of the 2014 Independent Review of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (the OMARA review).
This will see lawyers who hold practising certificates removed from regulation by the Migration Agents Registration Authority, so that they are regulated entirely by their relevant state or territory legal professional body, thus removing unnecessary red tape across the industry.
This recommendation has long been supported by this government; indeed, it was an election commitment the coalition took to the 2013 election as part of our deregulation agenda, so I am very pleased to be able to deliver on that commitment today.
The government recognises that the dual regulation of lawyers with practising certificates can pose an unnecessary administrative burden on such lawyer agents who are already subject to a strict professional regulatory regime.
The government further recognises that deregulation should not be prioritised over the maintenance of important consumer protections. Mechanisms will be put into place to ensure that vulnerable consumers will continue to be protected from receiving incompetent migration advice, particularly from unscrupulous individuals holding themselves out to be experts.
Lawyers with practising certificates intending to practice in the migration advice field will be able to access educational offerings to increase their knowledge, as they already do with other complex aspects of the legal profession.
The relevant legal professional bodies and statutory schemes underpinning them have a broader range of powers to resolve consumer-related issues than the scheme governing migration agents. This includes penalties outside of the OMARA's existing jurisdiction, including financial penalties for improper conduct and recommending compensation for affected clients.
The government has consulted broadly on this schedule. We even took the relatively uncommon step of circulating an exposure draft of schedule 1 to key stakeholders. This included the Law Council of Australia, the Migration Institute of Australia and the state and territory legal professional bodies.
The feedback received in response to this exposure draft will assist in ensuring the transition of lawyers with practising certificates from the OMARA regulatory scheme is as smooth as possible with regulators, industry and consumers all clear on their roles and responsibilities under the new arrangements.
Schedule 2: Registration periods (OMARA Review recommendation 12)
The legislative changes put forward by schedule 2 will ensure that the period that an individual has to apply for repeat registration as a migration agent, following their completion of the required qualifications, is set out in delegated legislation rather than on the face of the act.
These changes will complement the introduction of a Graduate Diploma in Australian Migration Law and Practice to replace the current graduate certificate. Once an individual possesses this qualification, it will never lapse, as is the case with most other tertiary qualifications. A capstone exam will be developed, that an individual must sit and pass within a certain period, in order to be accepted into the profession.
This group of changes will significantly enhance the current educational requirements and will continue to improve the level of professionalism within the industry.
Schedule 3: Redundant provisions
The third schedule to the bill is aimed at amending or repealing various redundant provisions of the Migration Act.
This will reflect the consolidation of the OMARA into the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and that the OMARA powers can only be exercised by the minister or a delegate. To this effect, this schedule will repeal:
powers of the minister to refer agents to the MARA for disciplinary action
powers authorising the sharing of personal information between the department and the MARA
the requirement for the OMARA to produce an annual report independent to the department.
Schedule 3 of the bill also removes redundant references to the Migration Institute of Australia, which is no longer appointed as the MARA and will not be so appointed in the future.
Schedule 4: Requirement for applicants to provide further information
Schedule 4 seeks to close an existing loophole that prevents the OMARA from refusing an application for registration as a migration agent, where the applicant does not respond to requests for further information. Presently, this means such incomplete applications remain unfinalised for an indefinite period.
Schedule 5: Registration application charges
Schedule 5 to the bill will amend the Migration Act to require a migration agent, who has been registered on a non-commercial basis, to notify the OMARA if there is a change in circumstances that has led to their providing immigration assistance on a commercial basis. This complements amendments made by the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017, and amendments that are proposed to be made to the regulations under the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997. Those amendments make the higher, commercial charge the default charge, and require a migration agent to pay an adjusted charge if they paid the non-commercial charge but then give immigration assistance for fee or reward.
Schedule 6: Other amendments
Schedule 6 to the bill amends the definitions of 'immigration assistance' and 'immigration representations' so that they include assisting a person to make a representation to the minister in relation to revocation of a visa refusal or cancellation decision under section 501C or 501CA of the Migration Act. This reflects the intention that a person must be a registered migration agent, or be exempt for the requirements under the law to be a registered migration agent, in order to give such assistance.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this bill makes a number of important amendments that will streamline the operation of the migration advice industry. It importantly delivers on a coalition election commitment as part of our deregulation strategy to remove unnecessary red tape across industry sectors.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hawke.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (12:13): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997(the charge act).
The amendments will ensure that a migration agent who originally applied for and had their registration as a non-commercial agent approved, but who at any point through that registration period becomes a commercial agent, becomes liable to pay a pro-rata commercial charge for the period in which they were a commercial agent.
This is one of a number of changes to portfolio legislation that are aimed at making the commercial registration application charge the default charge payable, and ensuring that the non-commercial charge can only be accessed by those applicants who will be genuinely be offering services on a non-profit basis and in association with a charitable organisation.
The charge amount payable is to be worked out in accordance with the formula within the legislation.
These amendments will complement those I have just discussed in relation to an agent's notification requirements should their registration status change from non-commercial to commercial at any point during their registration year.
The amendment will also complement those recently made to the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Regulations 1998. The amendments make the commercial registration application charge the default charge payable, unless an applicant can prove they meet all eligibility criteria that allows them to access the non-commercial charge.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this bill makes an important amendment in ensuring that only those agents who are providing genuinely noncommercial immigration assistance to the most vulnerable members of our community can access the noncommercial registration charge.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Explanatory Memorandum
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (12:15): I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum in respect of government amendment sheet MB113 for the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017, which was agreed to by the House on 20 June 2017, for the information of members.
Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 15 and 16), omit "If requested by the Minister, the Commissioner may also provide advice to the Minister on matters relating to rural health reform.", substitute "The Commissioner may also provide advice to the Minister on the development and distribution of the health workforce and on rural health reform.".
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 23), at the end of section 79AA, add "The Minister must consider a year before this whether the office should be extended.".
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 25), before "There", insert "(1)".
(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 2), at the end of section 79AB, add:
(2) The Minister must consider no later than 1 July 2019 whether the office of the Commissioner should be extended beyond 1 July 2020.
(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 9 and 10), omit paragraph 79AC(1) (c), substitute:
(c) providing advice to the Minister on the development and distribution of the rural health workforce and on matters relating to rural health reform.
(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 19), at the end of subsection 79AC(2), add:
; (d) consider advice of the Rural Health Stakeholder Roundtable and the rural health workforce distribution working group.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Assistant Minister for Health) (12:16): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
There have been several amendments which have strengthened the bill. They are commonsense recommendations. Firstly, it clarifies the scope of the role to include providing advice to the minister on the development and distribution of health workforce and other matters relating to health reform—essentially, a very commonsense putting in print of some of the roles that we had envisaged for the health commissioner; they are now there in black and white. Also, there is the initiative to review the role of the National Rural Health Commissioner 12 months before cessation for consideration of extension, if appropriate, and to direct the commissioner to consider the advice of the Rural Health Stakeholder Roundtable and the distribution working group—all commonsense recommendations and amendments which, obviously, I support. I would like to thank members on the other side for their contribution to the debate.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:17): I thank the minister for his comments just a moment ago and for proposing the amendments which are before us. These amendments are consistent with the position that we outlined when I first spoke in respect to this legislation. In essence, the notion of broadening the scope of the commissioner's role, the review period and the advisory committee that will be set up to advise the commissioner are all propositions that we have supported from the outset and, indeed, which we proposed. With those very few comments, I believe that, as the minister has quite rightly said, these amendments strengthen the commissioner's role and improve the legislation that is before us.
Question agreed to.
Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 35), after item 53, insert:
53A At the end of Division 177
Add:
177 ‑20 Review of provisions relating to offshore supplies of low value goods
(1) By the day after this section commences, the Productivity Minister must, under Part 3 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, refer to the Productivity Commission for inquiry the matter of the amendments to this Act made by the amending Act, including:
(a) the effectiveness of the amendments; and
(b) whether models for collecting goods and services tax in relation to *offshore supplies of low value goods other than the amendments might be suitable (including evaluation of the effects of the models on Australian small businesses and *consumers); and
(c) any other aspect the Productivity Commission considers relevant to the implementation of the amendments.
(2) In referring the matter to the Productivity Commission for inquiry, the Productivity Minister must:
(a) under paragraph 11(1) (a) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, require the Productivity Commission to hold hearings for the purposes of the inquiry; and
(b) under paragraph 11(1) (b) of that Act, specify the period ending on 31 October 2017 as the period within which the Productivity Commission must submit its report on the inquiry; and
(c) under paragraph 11(1) (d) of that Act, require the Productivity Commission to make recommendations in relation to the matter referred to in subsection (1).
Note: Under section 12 of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, the Productivity Minister must cause a copy of the Productivity Commission's report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.
(3) The Productivity Minister must not withdraw the reference before the Productivity Minister has received the report.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph 6(1) (a) of the Productivity Commission Act 1998, the matter mentioned in subsection (1) is taken to be a matter relating to industry, industry development and productivity.
(5) In this section:
amending Act means theTreasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Act 2017.
Productivity Minister means the Minister administering the Productivity Commission Act 1998.
(2) Schedule 1, item 65, page 27 (line 5), omit "1 July 2017", substitute "1 July 2018".
(3) Schedule 1, item 65, page 27 (line 6), omit "1 July 2017", substitute "1 July 2018".
(4) Schedule 1, item 65, page 27 (lines 9 and 10), omit "1 July 2017", substitute "1 July 2018".
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (12:18): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
This is a matter that the government has been determined to see legislated through this parliament for some time. It is a matter that will enable a level playing field for Australian retailers to be able to compete on the same basis as those who are seeking to sell goods into Australia at low values that do not attract GST. This is an important area of levelling the playing field for small business. I am pleased that we have been able to get to the point where we have, through the Senate, and for these amendments to be coming back to the House that will enable this matter to be determined.
I note that, as part of that arrangement, there was a request and a requirement that a Productivity Commission inquiry be undertaken into the collection methods for this tax to be applied to these low-value goods. The government has gone through extensive consultation in arriving at the method of collection. In the spirit of ensuring that these measures can be legislated to ensure that that certainty is there going into the future, then that commission will be undertaken, consistent with the amendment that is before the House, but I want to make one thing very clear. The government's policy is to implement this collection on the basis of the vendor method. Those involved in this area should understand that. They should take the actions that they now need to take to prepare for the implementation of this on 1 July next year on the basis of the vendor method. The government will not be looking kindly if others come six months from this date or beyond and say, 'It's all getting too hard to implement this again. We're going to have to delay.' There can be no further delay on this. This must be implemented.
I am pleased that we have been able to come to a position through the Senate that will enable this new measure to be put in place and legislated. Now we simply have to get on with it. The sector has to get on with it. The systems have to be put in place. The collection method will provide I think a real model, not just here but in other jurisdictions, as jurisdictions around the world seek to deal with the moving feast that is the tax base of developed economies. This is an important change that will now enable these economies to deal with those significant changes.
This does provide the certainty that I think is necessary. We are pleased to have been the government that has brought these changes into being. It is regrettable that they could not have been done earlier than this time and that they now will not come into effect until 1 July next year. The fact that they are about to become law in this country is a welcome development. We appreciate working with other members of the parliament to achieve that outcome.
The Productivity Commission will look at all of this material and they will report promptly by the end of October. It is very important that we require GST to be paid on low-value goods. It will level the playing field for Australian businesses to compete with overseas retailers. It is an overdue measure. It is important to protect the integrity of the GST base. We have done the work to determine the best model for Australia that balances the needs of consumers, the timeliness of clearance of goods at the border and the impact on businesses in the supply chain. We cannot burden our domestic businesses with the current inequitable arrangements while we wait for the technology to catch up and support other hypothetical models. We do not believe another review will deliver superior models, so it is important that we all get on with the job of implementing.
Other jurisdictions are already taking action and they are focusing on taxation of goods by the vendor at the point of sale. This is why from 1 January 2018 Switzerland will be requiring vendors to collect GST or value added tax on low-value imports. Vendors are already required to charge and collect GST or VAT on sales within the European Union. The OECD and EU also recognised in recent reports that there can be no substantive reform without a focus of taxation of goods by the supplier at the point of sale, so that is what we are taking action on. It will be well received I think by the states and territories. I thank particularly the state and territory treasurers for their support for this measure, which at the end of the day will mean more revenue for them for schools, hospitals and other essential services.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (12:23): We are glad that the government is accepting the will of the parliament on the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017. We are glad that the government is accepting these amendments because these are good amendments moved by the Labor Party. This is a commonsense result. It is a better result than the one the government was seeking. Let me be very clear. As I said in the House the other day and as I have said consistently, the Labor Party support the principle of a zero threshold on the GST. We support it because it is important for the competitive neutrality of our tax system or, to put it another way, to enable Australia's businesses, especially small businesses, to compete on a level playing field. Australia's small businesses are no longer competing with businesses in the same suburb, the same state or the same country; they are competing with businesses around the world, and businesses around the world have had a competitive advantage over our businesses. So we have supported what the government is trying to do.
The Treasurer said in his remarks that it is regrettable that this was not able to be done earlier. Well, the government is the government. This was announced by the previous Treasurer, Treasurer Hockey, in 2015. It was meant to come into force on 1 July 2017 and yet, on 21 June, we are debating this legislation for something which was meant to come into force in just 10 days time. The government is responsible for the delay here, but it is not the only thing the government is responsible for.
We took the in-principle support for this legislation and we consulted with the sector. My friend and colleague the shadow Assistant Treasurer—the member for Fenner—the member for Chifley and our friend Senator Gallacher consulted very widely on this. It became very clear to us that there were valid concerns about the implementation model which should be addressed through a Senate inquiry, and we instigated that Senate inquiry.
I again pay tribute to Senator Ketter and the other Labor senators who got to the nub of the issue in the Senate inquiry, so much so that even Liberal senators thought that this should be delayed by a year and recommended so such was the evidence before the Senate inquiry. The amendments that have been moved in the other house by us—flagged by me in this House and moved in the other house by us—delay this legislation by a year. Once this passes, it will come into force on 1 July 2018—it should be the law of the land. It does that, but it enables more time.
Very importantly, it requires the government to instigate a Productivity Commission inquiry into this. We do not want the commission to delay the matter. We do not want the commission to spend time sorting through issues unnecessarily. We want the Productivity Commission, for which we have respect on this side of the House—as do members opposite—to look at the implementation model. As I have said to those with concerns, if you cannot convince the Productivity Commission, then you will just have to cop the law of the land as it is. If the Productivity Commission recommends a change to the government, we would hope and expect the government to accept those change and come back to the House. So it is a matter for the government.
The amendments do not require the government to take action; they require the government to refer the matter to the Productivity Commission and for the Productivity Commission to examine the model only—not the principle, the model only—because we have had briefings from many affected people who say the model is simply unworkable. The Treasury evidence itself before the Senate inquiry showed that, at peak, this model would collect just over 50 per cent of the estimated potential revenue. If you want our businesses to compete on a level playing field, what you are doing is half the job by saying, 'We're only going to collect just over half the projected potential revenue.' So Australia's small businesses will be very disappointed with that model—that it was only going to fix half the problem.
There are people who say there are superior models. We are not in a position to design a model from opposition without the support of Treasury. We would not seek to do so, but we do have faith that the Productivity Commission can examine the issues and advise the government of a better way, if indeed a better way exists, as to how to implement that. We look forward to that.
It is regrettable the way the government has handled this matter but, nevertheless, I do thank the government for their engagement over the last few days. I thank the crossbenchers in the Senate for supporting the Labor amendments. Only with the crossbench support were we able to carry the day in the other place, which has put the government in a position where they accept these amendments in the House today. I think, very briefly, the member for Fenner is going to add to my remarks. We do not seek to delay this matter. The member for Fenner has a brief contribution to make.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:28): As they said in Oceans Eleven, you had one job to do: you just had to implement a bipartisan reform in order to bring down the GST threshold on low-value imports—something that is supported in principle by this side of the House. We have consistently said: if it raises revenue and it can be efficiently done, then we will back it. But we have come to this point because the government now, with just days to go before the beginning of the next financial year, wants to bring in some significant changes which those responsible for implementing say have serious problems. We have had even threats that Australia might be geoblocked as a result of these changes. Had the government moved with greater lead time, we might not be in the position we are in today. But the reason that not just Labor senators but coalition senators called for a 12-month delay was their concern that the government had botched it.
This is not climate change. It is not industrial reform. It is not dealing with the rise of China. This is the implementation of a reform that has bipartisan support in a way that ensures that we get significant compliance. Labor's concern is that the government's preferred model, when it ripens, when it is at full implementation, will still miss 46 per cent of the low-value goods imported into Australia. That is why we have called for, and why the House will now be supporting, a review by the Productivity Commission—a body which is experienced in dealing with this issue; a body which will be able to look carefully at the model and see whether or not it can be improved. As the shadow Treasurer has said, this will now be the law of the land—this will go through—but we do trust that the government will listen carefully to advice from the Productivity Commission.
As we have seen so often, whether it be superannuation tax concession, cigarette excise or funding of community legal centres, the Abbott and Turnbull governments eventually come around to the policy leadership of Labor. Our focus is on achieving better economic outcomes for Australia. Our measures have always been about trying to ensure the government is able to better achieve the goals that enjoy bipartisan support. We just want them to be able to do the right job.
Question agreed to.
Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 26 and 27), omit paragraph (e), substitute:
(e) unlicensed regulated interactive gambling services must not be advertised;
(f) a restricted wagering service must not offer credit to use the service.
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 18), after the definition of civil penalty provision, insert:
credit has the meaning given by section 11A.
(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 25), after the definition of Regulatory Powers Act, insert:
restricted wagering service means a gambling service that:
(a) is provided to customers using any of the following:
(i) an internet carriage service;
(ii) any other listed carriage service;
(iii) a broadcasting service;
(iv) any other content service;
(v) a datacasting service; and
(b) relates to the placing, making, receiving or acceptance of bets on, or on a series of, any or all of the following:
(i) a horse race;
(ii) a harness race;
(iii) a greyhound race;
(iv) a sporting event.
(4) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 12), after item 32, insert:
32A After section 11
Insert:
11A Meaning of credit
For the purposes of this Act, credit is provided by a restricted wagering service if under a contract or other arrangement:
(a) payment of a debt owed by one person to another is deferred; or
(b) one person incurs a deferred debt to another.
(5) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 19), after item 138, insert:
138A After Part 7A
Insert:
Part 7B—Restricted wagering services
Division 1—Simplified outline of this Part
61G Simplified outline of this Part
This Part bans a restricted wagering service from providing or offering credit. The ban aims to ensure that restricted wagering services do not engage in a predatory practice, particularly in relation to problem gamblers, and that sports betting services are provided in a responsible manner.
Restricted wagering services that contravene the restriction may commit an offence or contravene a civil penalty provision.
Division 2—Prohibition of credit betting
61GA Restricted wagering service must not offer credit
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and
(b) the service provides, or offers to provide, credit to individuals to use the service.
Fault ‑based offence
(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
Civil penalty provision
(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).
Civil penalty: 500 penalty units.
Continuing offences or contraventions
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
(6) Schedule 1, item 139, page 33 (line 13), at the end of subsection 64C(1), add:
; (j) section 61GA.
(7) Schedule 1, item 139, page 34 (line 18), at the end of subsection 64D(1), add:
; (j) section 61GA. I move:
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Human Services) (12:31): I move:
That the Senate amendments be disagreed to and that the following government amendments, government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, be made in place thereof:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
3. Schedule 2 |
The day after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. |
|
(2) Page 38 (after line 10), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 2—Prohibition of credit betting
Interactive Gambling Act 2001
1 Section 3
After:
(c) an Australian‑based prohibited interactive gambling service must not be provided to customers in designated countries;
insert:
(ca) credit must not be provided to customers of certain interactive wagering services;
2 Section 4
Insert:
credit has the meaning given by section 11A.
related company group means a group of 2 or more bodies corporate, where each member of the group is related to each other member of the group. For this purpose, the question whether a body corporate is related to another body corporate is to be determined in the same manner as that question is determined under the Corporations Act 2001.
wagering service means a service covered by paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of gambling service.
wagering service provider means a person who provides a wagering service.
wagering turnover of a person for a financial year means so much of the turnover of the person for the financial year as is attributable to the provision of wagering services.
3 After section 11
Insert:
11A Credit
For the purposes of this Act, credit is provided by a person (the creditor) to another person (the debtor) if, under a contract, arrangement or understanding:
(a) payment of a debt owed by the debtor to the creditor is deferred; or
(b) the debtor incurs a deferred debt to the creditor.
4 After Part 2A
Insert:
Part 2B—Credit not to be provided to customers of certain interactive wagering services
15B Simplified outline of this Part
Credit must not be provided to customers of certain interactive wagering services.
The ACMA must conduct a review of the operation of this Part.
15C Credit not to be provided to customers of certain interactive wagering services
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person intentionally provides a regulated interactive gambling service that is a wagering service; and
(b) either:
(i) the person provides, or offers to provide, credit in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service who is physically present in Australia; or
(ii) the person facilitates or promotes the provision of credit (other than by way of an independently‑issued credit card), by a third person, in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service who is physically present in Australia.
Penalty: 500 penalty units.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits a separate offence in respect of each day (including a day of conviction for the offence or any later day) during which the contravention continues.
(3) A person who provides a regulated interactive gambling service that is a wagering service must not:
(a) provide, or offer to provide, credit in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service who is physically present in Australia; or
(b) facilitate or promote the provision of credit (other than by way of an independently‑issued credit card), by a third person, in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service who is physically present in Australia.
Civil penalty: 750 penalty units.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (3) commits a separate contravention of that provision in respect of each day during which the contravention occurs (including the day the relevant civil penalty order is made or any later day).
(5) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply if the person:
(a) did not know; and
(b) could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained;
that the customer, or prospective customer, as the case may be, was physically present in Australia.
Note: In the case of proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), the defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), in determining whether the person could, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the customer, or prospective customer, as the case may be, was physically present in Australia, the following matters are to be taken into account:
(a) whether the customer, or prospective customer, as the case may be, was informed that Australian law prohibits the provision of credit to customers, or prospective customers, who are physically present in Australia;
(b) whether the person required customers to provide personal details and, if so, whether those details suggested that the customer was not physically present in Australia;
(c) whether the person has network data that indicates that customers were physically present outside Australia:
(i) when the relevant customer account was opened; and
(ii) throughout the period when the service was provided to the customer;
(d) any other relevant matters.
(7) For the purposes of the application of subsections (1) and (3) to a person who provides a regulated interactive gambling service, independently‑issued credit card means:
(a) if the person is not a member of a related company group—a credit card issued by another person; or
(b) if the person is a member of a related company group—a credit card issued by another person who is not a member of the related company group.
(8) Section 15.4 of the Criminal Code (extended geographical jurisdiction—category D) applies to an offence against subsection (1).
15D Exception—provider ' s annual wagering turnover less than $30 million
(1) Subsections 15C(1) and (3) do not apply to conduct engaged in by a person at a particular time (the relevant time) in a financial year (the current financial year) in relation to a regulated interactive gambling service if:
(a) the service is a telephone betting service; and
(b) both:
(i) the conduct involves providing, or offering to provide, credit in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service; and
(ii) dealings with the customer, or prospective customer, as the case may be, in relation to providing, or offering to provide that credit are wholly by way of one or more voice calls; and
(c) in a case where:
(i) the person is not a member of a related company group at the relevant time; and
(ii) the person was a wagering service provider throughout the last financial year that ended before the relevant time;
the wagering turnover of the person for that financial year was less than $30 million; and
(d) in a case where:
(i) the person is not a member of a related company group at the relevant time; and
(ii) the person was not a wagering service provider throughout the last financial year that ended before the relevant time;
it is reasonably likely that the wagering turnover of the person for the current financial year will be less than $30 million; and
(e) in a case where:
(i) the person is a member of a related company group at the relevant time; and
(ii) the person was a wagering service provider throughout the last financial year that ended before the relevant time;
the total wagering turnover of the members of the group for that financial year was less than $30 million; and
(f) in a case where:
(i) the person is a member of a related company group at the relevant time; and
(ii) the person was not a wagering service provider throughout the last financial year that ended before the relevant time;
it is reasonably likely that the total wagering turnover of the members of the group for the current financial year will be less than $30 million; and
(g) in a case where, during the whole or a part of the last financial year that ended before the relevant time, the person had one or more employees whose duties involved the provision of wagering services—during the whole or a part of that financial year, at least one of those employees performed those duties at a racecourse in Australia; and
(h) in a case where:
(i) the person is an individual; and
(ii) the person did not, at any time during the last financial year that ended before the relevant time, have any employees whose duties involved the provision of wagering services;
during the whole or a part of that financial year, the person provided wagering services at a racecourse in Australia; and
(i) the other conditions (if any) determined under subsection (2) have been satisfied.
Note: In the case of proceedings for an offence against subsection 15C(1), the defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine one or more conditions for the purposes of paragraph (1) (i).
(3) For the purposes of this section, voice call means a voice call (within the meaning of section 8AA) that is made using a carriage service.
15E Exception—customer is a gambling service provider
(1) Subsections 15C(1) and (3) do not apply if:
(a) the customer, or prospective customer, of the regulated interactive gambling service is the provider of a gambling service; and
(b) the other conditions (if any) determined under subsection (2) have been satisfied.
Note: In the case of proceedings for an offence against subsection 15C(1), the defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).
(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine one or more conditions for the purposes of paragraph (1) (b).
15F Acquisition of property
(1) Section 15C has no effect to the extent (if any) to which its operation would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).
(2) Section 15C does not prevent a person from recovering a debt that was deferred or incurred before the commencement of that section.
15G Review of operation of this Part
(1) After the end of the 3‑year period beginning at the commencement of this section, the ACMA must conduct a review of the operation of:
(a) this Part; and
(b) the remaining provisions of this Act, so far as they relate to this Part.
Public consultation
(2) A review under subsection (1) must make provision for public consultation.
Report
(3) The ACMA must:
(a) give the Minister a report of the review within 6 months after the end of the 3‑year period mentioned in subsection (1); and
(b) as soon as practicable after giving the report to the Minister, publish the report on the ACMA's website.
(4) The Minister must cause copies of a report under subsection (3) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.
5 After paragraph 16(b)
Insert:
(ba) Part 2B; or
6 After subparagraph 21(1 ) ( a ) ( ii)
Insert:
(iia) Part 2B; or
7 After paragraph 64A(c)
Insert:
(ca) subsection 15C(3); or
8 After paragraph 64C(1 ) ( c)
Insert:
(ca) subsection 15C(3);
9 After paragraph 64D(1 ) ( c)
Insert:
(ca) subsection 15C(3);
The amendments which we present today to the House are very important amendments. In essence, they will prohibit online gambling companies from being able to offer lines of credit to their customers. This was an election commitment of ours in 2013; it was raised by the O'Farrell review into online gambling; it was an election commitment of ours in 2016; and now the amendments to this bill will implement those commitments.
In essence, we are concerned about online gambling companies offering lines of credit, because there is too much of a conflict between a gambling company providing gambling services on the one hand and effectively being a bank on the other, to enable a gambler to continue with their gambling practice even if they have already cleaned out their savings account and any other asset that they have. We hold the principle very dear that there should be a separation between those two things.
This has been a very personal commitment of mine as well since my first term in this parliament—from perhaps five years ago now. It was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine who came to see me with his widowed mother. He was a person who had a gambling problem and was unemployed at the time. He did not have a job and he would have struggled to get a second-hand car loan, but he was offered, first of all, $5,000 by Sportsbet to continue his betting by way of a line of credit and then $10,000, then $20,000, then $40,000 and then $80,000 in credit by this online gambling company for him to continue his betting practices despite him being an unemployed individual. He came to see me after the gambling company said to him, after he had blown all of that money, that he had to pay back the money and that they were going to bankrupt him and seize his and his widowed mother's house to pay back the debt. I committed at that time that we should fix this problem, and today this bill does exactly that.
Importantly, though, the bill does provide an exemption, and that is the exemption for trackside bookmakers—in essence, those trackside bookmakers who have been doing their practice for hundreds of years. Indeed, my understanding is that that is where credit betting initially originated—from giving a nod to a potential customer trackside. We had always said that we would exclude that category, and this important amendment does exclude that category of people from the application of the otherwise broad principle of prohibiting gambling companies offering lines of credit. The bill also allows a transition period of six months before the prohibition comes into effect, to allow waging operators and consumers to adjust their business and betting practices, with no time limits placed on the recovery of debts as such. But the amendment also gives authority for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to undertake a statutory review after three years to assess the effectiveness of these new provisions. It also prohibits operators from promoting or facilitating credit via a third party—for example, small account credit contractors such as payday lenders—which was not captured in the initial Senate amendments.
I would like to thank the member for Franklin, who is sitting opposite me, for her cooperation in working through these amendments. These amendments, in essence, are in place of amendments which were moved by the Xenophon Team in the Senate and which the Labor Party supported. We were concerned that those amendments had not been thought through and had not made that carve out provision for the trackside bookmakers. There were also a few other technical problems with those amendments. In consultation with the member for Franklin, as well as with the broader industry, the responsible gambling groups such as Responsible Wagering Australia, we are confident that this bill, these amendments, will fulfil the overall objective of prohibiting lines of credit being offered. That will help many thousands of people in the years ahead, as well as provide that essential carve out for the trackside bookmakers, so that they continue their practice. I commend these amendments to the House.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (12:36): Labor has always maintained a strong stance to ensure appropriate harm minimisation measures are in place to protect and assist our community when it comes to responsible gambling. We know that the majority of people who gamble enjoy it and do it in a responsible manner. However, we also acknowledge that gambling in our community can, in some cases, have devastating social, financial and emotional consequences. That is why we supported many elements of the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016, moved by the minister in this place. The Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 is an important starting point that will go towards improving protections for those who choose to wager within an online environment.
Labor has been very clear on our position when it comes to banning credit betting. We have always thought a ban on credit betting is an important part of harm minimisation measures, particularly in relation to problem gambling. And that is why we did support a Senate amendment to ban credit betting. While I appreciate and acknowledge the minister's personal commitment, it is a shame that this provision was not in the original bill. I am not sure why it was not in the original bill, and I understand that the minister wanted to deal with the states on these matter first and come to that. But it really could have been in the original bill, and we could have had this bill through the houses of parliament months earlier. But it is very pleasing to see that the government and the minister have worked very hard to ensure that this amendment occurs and that the ban on credit betting provision will be in the bill. I also understand and appreciate the government's consultation in relation to the trackside bookmakers and the exemptions that will be provided in this bill for them.
When it comes to that exemption, I have also sought some assurances from the government and the minister that the turnover of $30 million is an appropriate threshold to have this exemption for trackside bookmakers. I want to put on record that, if there is any way that any of the other gaming operators try to get through this loophole, I would expect the government to act on that. It is of course only intended for trackside bookies that this occurs. I appreciate the government working on that and I appreciate the consultation from the government on it, and I am really pleased to see that finally we will get some harm minimisation for people in an online gambling environment. I will be supporting the government's amendment.
Question agreed to.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (12:39): I am pleased to be speaking on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017. This is a very important piece of legislation. Labor does support the development of a strong quality and safeguards framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This type of framework is required if we are to see the proper protection of people with disability. We of course want to see people with disability prevented from experiencing harm that arises from poor quality or unsafe supports or services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This will be vital to the long-term success of the NDIS.
The NDIS, of course, was created by Labor in 2013. It represents a really dramatic shift from services delivered largely under block-funded contractual relationships between providers and Commonwealth, state and territory governments, as the funders, to a situation where people with disability are the purchasers and consumers of services from a diverse market, to better meet—and this is the important thing—the needs and choices of people with disability. This bill is an acknowledgement that the existing governance arrangements will not be adequate by the time the NDIS reaches full rollout in 2019-20. It is the case that the current arrangements will remain in place during the transition years.
The bill establishes an independent national commission to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm arising from poor quality or unsafe supports or services under the NDIS. At full scheme of the NDIS, the commission will be responsible for overseeing quality supports and services for people with disability who are receiving those NDIS supports and services. The bill's explanatory memorandum states that the primary focus of the commission will be regulating NDIS service providers to make sure that NDIS participants—that is, people with disability—receive the standard of service that they deserve.
Schedule 1 of the bill relates to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. Specifically it will establish the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission as an independent statutory body with the following integrated regulatory functions: registration and regulation of NDIS providers, including practice standards and a code of conduct; compliance monitoring; investigation and enforcement action; responding to complaints and reportable incidents, including abuse and neglect of a person with disability; national policy-setting for the screening of workers; national oversight and policy-setting in relation to behaviour support; monitoring the use of restrictive practices—a very important issue—within the NDIS, with the aim of reducing and eliminating such practices; and facilitating information-sharing arrangements between the commission, the National Disability Insurance Agency and state and territory and other Commonwealth regulatory bodies.
Schedule 2 makes a number of amendments to the act to improve the operation of the act following the independent review conducted for the purposes of section 208 of the act.
The establishment of the commission is expected to cost around $209 million over the forward estimates. This is a very large and complex bill, but, at its core, it is about helping to empower and support NDIS participants to exercise choice and control at the same time as ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place and establishing expectations of providers and their staff to deliver high-quality supports. As I say, it is a very complex bill, but it is fundamental to the successful rollout of the NDIS. It does need thorough examination and it needs to be made subject to extensive consultation with the disability community.
In February 2017, the Disability Reform Council released the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. This framework included measures targeted at individuals, the workforce and providers to strengthen their capacity to prevent harm and ensure quality services and to resolve problems, enable improvements and provide oversight. There has been a series of recent inquiries and reports that have documented the weaknesses of the current safeguarding arrangements for disability services, many of which result from a disconnection between quality assurance and oversight regulatory functions. We have seen the Senate inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with a disability in institutional and residential settings, Victorian government inquiries and, of course, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. These inquiries have found failures to uncover, report and respond to abuse and inadequate screening of workers. They called for many changes, including nationally consistent provider accreditation and the use of behavioural support strategies that do not involve restrictive practices to reduce challenging behaviours. Labor will continue to consider this legislation carefully in consultation with people with disability and also with providers, unions and other stakeholders. The bill has already been referred to a Senate inquiry to allow for further consultation and scrutiny. The Senate inquiry is due to report in early September.
A number of concerns have been raised about the legislation by states, unions and other stakeholders, and I want to touch on a few of those today. Concerns have been raised that the legislation will provide too much discretionary power to the Commonwealth minister to make regulations relating to the framework which will not require consensus from the states and territories, undermining the consistency of the national scheme. Other concerns are that it does not establish a national system of workforce screening and that there will be conflict between the commission's role as regulator and policymaker and in the delivery of financial assistance grants. Specifically, there is concern that the Commonwealth minister's power over the commission could be seen as compromising its ability to act independently. The proposed model raises the potential for perception of a conflict of interest, particularly as it relates to the handling of complaints. These are genuine concerns.
I am aware that the Victorian government has indicated the need for greater state involvement and review of arrangements. Specifically, the Victorian government has suggested that there be a separate statutory NDIS complaints commissioner. It suggested the need for agreement of all jurisdictions on rules that are fundamental to the detail, design and implementation of key components of the framework, at least during the implementation phase of the frameworks operation. It also suggested that the operation of the quality and safeguard provisions of the NDIS Act and whether it is delivering on the objectives of the framework be subject to an independent review in July 2020, with the reviewer and terms of reference agreed by the Disability Reform Council. I ask that the minister give consideration to these suggestions. Other states and territories also have their own proposed amendments. I understand and appreciate that the Minister for Social Services wants to get going with this legislation. It is very important. There are agreed time frames that need to be met to make sure that the commission is established by 1 July 2018. Nonetheless, given the importance of this legislation, we need to take a deliberative and consultative approach.
The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for disability and carers, Senator Brown, the shadow minister for employment, Brendan O'Connor, who is with me here today, and I, attended a forum hosted by several unions last Friday to discuss NDIS workforce issues, including this framework. It was a very productive forum. We received very valuable feedback about the workforce issues in the NDIS. I thank the ASU, the HSU and United Voice for organising the forum.
Issues raised included the proper training and remuneration of the NDIS workforce. I think we would all agree that high-quality care and support for people with disability relies on staff being well trained, with decent wages and conditions. Significantly, there were concerns expressed that current prices in the NDIS do not account for what is required to deliver high-quality services and arrangements are not fully enabling disability support workers to deliver services which are personalised, coordinated or safe. These are very serious issues that need to be examined thoroughly.
Currently, the Productivity Commission are undertaking a five-yearly review into the NDIS. The final report is due in September, and we all look forward to seeing its recommendations. Their position paper, which was released just last week, makes clear that increased regulatory consistency across jurisdictions through the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework should mean lower costs for some providers. The Productivity Commission report also notes that the time frame for implementing the framework is important in ensuring quality and safety for scheme participants and to provide clarity and reducing regulatory burdens for all concerned.
Just last month, the federal Labor Party announced that, should we win the next election, we will establish a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disability. The continued abuse of Australians with a disability by people who are meant to care for them demands a royal commission. People with disability experience much higher rates of violence than the rest of the community, and in many cases this violence occurs in places where they are meant to be receiving support. Children with disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than other children. People with disability and their families have—as I think everyone in the House knows—been campaigning for a royal commission for years. Only a royal commission has the weight, authority and investigative powers to examine these horrific accounts of abuse and violence against people with disability.
The day that we made the announcement in Melbourne was very emotional. We made the announcement alongside many survivors of abuse. As one of the survivors said to me:
Enough is enough. It is our time to be heard. Here is our time for justice, now.
Another woman, Paula, shared a very emotional story, and she said:
Our son is autistic and our son has been physically and sexually abused. What you need to understand is autistic people don't lie. So when they tell these stories, you need to listen, you need to really listen and make sure that these people know that they're being heard. They need to be heard and they need to be reassured that they're going to be safe telling their stories.
These accounts really underscored to me the importance of having a royal commission.
For so long, the abuse that people with disability have suffered has been ignored or, in many cases, not believed. The scale and severity of abuse against people with disability in institutional care was outlined by an ABC TV Four Corners program in 2014. It became the catalyst for the Senate inquiry in 2015, which made 30 recommendations, including the establishment of a royal commission. Unfortunately, it took the Turnbull government 16 months to respond. The government has rejected the calls for a royal commission and accepted only one of the inquiry's 30 recommendations.
In March this year, Four Corners again revealed further cases of sexual and physical abuse inflicted on people with disability and that perpetrators have not been prosecuted. Worse, they may still be working in the disability sector. As I said, it is very disappointing that this government has so far rejected the call to establish a royal commission. The reason the government has given for rejecting this call is that they claim that the legislation we are debating today will address all of these issues. I am sorry to say that is simply not true. The framework that we are debating today will apply to approximately 10 per cent of people with disability who will be NDIS participants. Of course, this legislation will not address the abuse that has occurred in the past. So once again, I call on the government to establish a royal commission into the abuse of people with disability—now.
I want to take a moment to address some of the claims that have been made by those opposite that somehow Labor is not fully committed to the full rollout and full funding of the NDIS. This is utter rubbish. It is simply wrong, and the government knows it is wrong. For the sake of people with disability, it really must stop. No-one is more committed to the successful rollout of the NDIS than Labor. We established the NDIS. It took years of campaigning and years of work alongside the disability community. We are 100 per cent committed to the NDIS and 100 per cent committed to fully funding it.
I want to address the issue of special accounts, and the way in which the government misleads people with its suggestion that, somehow, the only way to guarantee the future of the NDIS is to establish a special account. We do not seem to need that for submarines or other defence funding, or for anything else in the budget, but for some reason, the government seems to think we need a special account for the funding of the NDIS. But these special accounts are not special at all. They do not actually hold any funds. Peter Martin, the economics editor for The Age, wrote recently about the government holding the NDIS to ransom. He wrote:
…there are no locked boxes.
… …
There are no separate jam jars.
The account—this special disability account—will sit inside consolidated revenue. Section 81 of the Constitution sets out that consolidated revenue is all of the taxes that the Commonwealth raises—including the Medicare levy, personal income tax, company tax, excise, the petroleum resource rent tax, the new bank levy—we could go on. And on the expenditure side, we have many different demand-driven programs, like Medicare and the age pension—all using money appropriated by the government through this parliament from consolidated revenue to pay for these services. Just like other government services, the NDIS will have its money appropriated annually through the parliament. A special account is just another way of appropriating these funds.
In the last four years, we have seen this government say that the only way to fund the NDIS was to make cuts to people with disability. They said they wanted to see people knocked off the disability support pension, or new people losing the energy supplement, including people with disability. We have seen this government trying to hold the NDIS, and people with disability, to ransom over the last four years. Labor, of course, opposes the government's cuts to people with disability. We oppose the idea of holding people with disability to ransom. I just want to reiterate—particularly to reassure people with disability—that Labor will always fully fund the NDIS.
In summary, we support a strong quality and safeguards framework. It is required to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm arising from poor-quality or unsafe supports or services under the NDIS. We will not oppose this bill in the House. We look forward to it being scrutinised through the Senate inquiry, and look forward to the input of the disability community as the discussions proceed. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that people with disability experience much higher rates of violence than the rest of the community, and in many cases, this violence occurs in places where they are meant to be receiving support;
(2) notes that children with disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than other children;
(3) condemns the Government's decision to reject a Royal Commission into Violence and Abuse against People with disability;
(4) notes that, contrary to the Government's claims, NDIS Quality and Safeguards will not negate the need for a Royal Commission into abuse of people with disability; and
(5) calls on the Turnbull Government to establish a Royal Commission so that people with disability, their families and carers can tell their stories to the highest level of judicial inquiry and seek justice".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Brendan O'Connor: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (13:00): I rise today to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017. As the previous speaker said, this is important legislation. The NDIS is the biggest reform of disability services in Australia's history. It is also a reform that will be life-changing for so many Australians with disability, their carers and their families. At full scheme, approximately 460,000 people living with permanent and significant disability will have individually tailored and funded packages. The scheme provides participants with the support they need to undertake everyday activities, so they can participate in their communities and in social and economic life. The NDIS is not just transforming the lives of participants; it also has opportunities and challenges for providers. As assistant minister, I have had discussions with many providers and stakeholders as I travel throughout Australia, and I am conscious of the impact of such a large reform.
The scheme also increases demand for tens of thousands of new jobs across Australia, creating opportunities for workers and the businesses that will employ them. Given the coalition's 2017 budget focus on more and better-paying jobs, the disability employment sector presents a real opportunity for growth. With a developing market and such a large increase in workers, we need to ensure there is sound regulation underpinning the NDIS to ensure the scheme can achieve everything it is designed to deliver for people with disability and their families. The Quality and Safeguards Commission and the supporting framework will work to ensure that supports and services are delivered safely and to a high standard for participants. We have heard the reports over the past few weeks of a gentleman with physical and intellectual disability being dragged along the carpet by staff members at his group home, and receiving second-degree burns. The incident was never reported. Mr Deputy Speaker, can I say that this is simply not good enough. Under the Quality and Safeguards Commission, providers will be required to report incidents of abuse and neglect. The commission will ensure that the provider takes appropriate action with respect to individuals they support and makes the required changes to prevent these sorts of incidents ever happening again.
This bill will see the establishment of a commission that will replace the various quality and safeguard arrangements currently operating in each state and territory. It will bring together the different functions—complaints, reportable incidents, provider registration—into one organisation to deliver effective regulatory intervention and integration. This bill puts into effect the NDIS quality and safeguards framework which has been developed through extensive stakeholder consultations across three years, and reflects the commitment of all governments to address the weaknesses in the current safeguarding arrangements. We have had extensive consultation from all stakeholders to make sure that we get this bill right. For participants, this means greater protection and prevention from unsafe or poor supports or services. Recent public inquiries and reviews have highlighted the importance of a strong regulatory framework, particularly for people in residential settings, and this is what the commission will provide. For NDIS participants, the establishment of the commission will mean the quality of registered providers delivering services and supports to participants will be monitored. It will also mean the reduction, and hopefully the elimination, of practices or interventions that restrict the rights or freedom of movement of a person with disability. To balance this, the commission will also promote strategies to reduce challenging behaviours. The commission will ensure that registered NDIS providers have appropriate complaint and incident management systems, and this will be supported by the commission's own complaints mechanism to receive, manage and respond to complaints regarding NDIS providers and workers.
Establishment of an independent commission will support market growth by providing a national accreditation process for providers. This means providers will have a single registration point at full scheme regardless of the number of jurisdictions in which they operate, thereby reducing duplication and providing national consistency. The regulatory requirements for workers and providers will be risk based, dependent on the type of services and supports they provide. Higher-risk supports and services will have stricter regulatory requirements. Providers will also need to comply with the NDIS Code of Conduct regardless of whether they are registered or not. The code will reflect the National Standards for Disability Services and the National Standards in Mental Health Services together with the objectives of the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework.
For registered providers, there will be NDIS practice standards to be met for the supports and services they provide. This means an overall reduction in red tape for providers, something I am focused on and consider very important, but it still gives the right balance between providing protections for NDIS participants and not restricting their capacity to exercise choice and control. The commission will monitor the NDIS market for emerging risks, including unplanned provider exits. It will identify trends in provider practice which may contribute to provider failure or indicate issues with the quality or safety of supports. Monitoring changes to the market will be underpinned by information gathering and sharing provisions across the commission and with other regulators, such as state and territory governments, who will be responsible for worker screening for the NDIS.
I support the extensive compliance and enforcement powers that this bill gives the commission to ensure our most vulnerable participants are protected. The bill introduces an NDIS code of conduct for all providers and workers delivering services under the NDIS and actively ensures that restrictive practices are only used as a last resort, and only when authorised by the state or territory in which the participant lives.
Protecting our most vulnerable people must be our priority. However, we need to do this in a cohesive way so it does not unnecessarily constrain the growth of the market or impose unnecessary levels of accreditation or training for workers as a gut reaction to recent inquiries. We need to ensure that the level of training and accreditation is fit for purpose. As we heard yesterday from the young carers, their 12, 15 or 20 years experience as a carer for family or a relative often makes them much more equipped than someone with a 2½-week course or accreditation. We must acknowledge the work and experience gained by young carers in the support they give to their family members. We also need to ensure the commission has the appropriate authority and investigative powers to undertake their role without an administrative framework that prevents them from fulfilling this role. As with any organisation of this type, they will report to the minister and respond to issues raised.
The commission will complement the role of the NDIA and, together, they will have overall responsibility for NDIS participants and the provider market. This will invest $209 million over four years to implement comprehensive safeguards for NDIS participants, which further supports them in exercising choice and control over who delivers their supports and services. This is yet a further commitment by the coalition government to a fully funded NDIS that ensures certainty for Australians living with permanent and significant disability, their carers and their families.
I also support the amendments to the NDIS Act that arose from the independent review of how the act operated. The review identified areas where greater clarification could be provided without altering the design or eligibility of the scheme. These changes will help deliver an NDIS that is for all Australians, and include strengthening the act to include stronger references to carers; providing a clearer definition of information linkages and capacity building, which expands the general supports which can be provided; and addressing inadequacies of the legislation, such as enabling the CEO to gather information about prospective participants to help the transition into the NDIS.
The passage of this bill is crucial to providing the necessary safeguard for NDIS participants and their families and to allowing the NDIS to be delivered effectively. This bill ensures that services are delivered to a minimum standard and, where this does not occur, there is a clear process to address these issues. This bill also gives greater recognition to carers and the important role they play. As I often mention, I appreciate the opportunity to meet many people with disability and their service providers and to hear their stories. I continue to be impressed when I hear stories about how the NDIS is making a difference to people's lives. I need not explain the importance that the coalition government places on the success of the NDIS. However, unlike those opposite, we recognise the criticality of making sure the scheme is properly funded. I am pleased to be part of a strong coalition team who want to ensure people with disability are protected and supported in achieving their goals. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:10): It is with the experiences of Canberrans in mind that I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017. Labor supports the development of a strong quality and safeguards framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme so that we can protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm from poor quality or unsafe supports or services under the NDIS. It is vitally important that we protect those who are vulnerable and living with disability from dodgy practitioners and people who are out to exploit them.
We know that this bill is extensive and complex. It is very important legislation for the Australian community not just for those living with disability but also for those who are carers. We need to have this discussion about frameworks and protecting those with disability because one of the drivers behind the NDIS is the fact that it will empower those with disability. It will give them the opportunity to have choice in the services and supports that they need. It will give them the opportunity to tailor those supports and services to the needs of their lifestyle. Rather than just receiving an institutional approach, it is a broad based approach that will allow them to pick and choose what they need that will best benefit their specific needs. That is the beauty of the NDIS.
The NDIS will allow people living with disability to have choice. It will give them autonomy. It will give them independence. It will provide them that opportunity they have never had before to tailor the supports and services to what they need rather than to what is being provided or what an institution deems is appropriate—it is what they need. Through that process, it will empower those living with disability. That said, that can be threatening. When you are brand new to having to make a choice—you have always had choices made for you or the system made the choices for you—having the opportunity to tailor those supports and services and choose those supports and services can be threatening. It can be scary.
In the early days here in Canberra we were at the vanguard of the rollout of the NDIS; we were a trial site. I met with a number of parents who embraced the spirit of the NDIS and that sense of empowerment. They saw it for the opportunities that it would provide for their children. I met with parents who relished the fact that they could get a carer for their teenage daughter or son, or their daughter or son in their 20s, and take them out to the movies on a Saturday night or to the bowling club on a Saturday night, or take them out for a nice meal so they had a companion. It meant that the parents could go out on a date for the first time in a very long time. Some marriages and relationships were rekindled, so to speak, because their son or daughter had the opportunity to go out and do their own thing rather than having to go out with mum and dad. Mum and dad could then go out and do their own thing and be with their friends or be with each other and have a lovely time together on a date. There were those parents who really relished the liberation—in many ways, the empowerment—that the NDIS provided.
That said, I also spoke to parents who felt overwhelmed by it. They were overwhelmed by the options and the choice. They did not know how to navigate their way through the system. One of them had a profoundly intellectually disabled daughter and felt, and rightly so, that that was enough. Their life was focused on their daughter, and rightly so. They did not have the energy to choose what services and support they needed. They were just exhausted. This is why it is so important that we provide the supports and services to those parents, particularly the carers, who do feel overwhelmed by the NDIS. The whole idea is empowerment, liberation and choice. They are tailor-made systems. We do not want people being overwhelmed by this; we want people being empowered and freed up by this program. With choice and options comes a need for quality control, quality standards and quality frameworks.
As I said, the ACT was one of the eight initial trial sites for the NDIS and the first state or territory to be fully operational under the NDIS rollout. We have had our fair share of experiences and in particular where the client, the person with a disability, was not being listened to. I will give some examples. I spoke back in February about Elise's experience with the NDIA. Unfortunately, four months on, the issue with her plan still has not been resolved. In February Elise had been waiting months for approval from the NDIA's technical advisory committee for a medical bed. She needed a very specific bed. It was not a cheap bed. Since then the funding provided has been insufficient to meet her needs, as identified by her occupational therapist, and other services have been removed from her plan without consultation.
I am sure there are many in this chamber who are getting the same feedback from their electorates. There are real problems getting management plans approved. Unilateral decisions are being made on what is included and what is excluded from the plan. There is no consultation on what is being included and what is being excluded. As I said, I am sure I as a member of parliament or senator am not alone in having constituents come and discuss these challenges.
The other example I have had is from Wayne. Wayne is an exceptional man. He is exceptional in many ways, and I will explain why in just a moment. Wayne came to me late last year I think it was. Wayne has cerebral palsy. He was updating his management plan and was told that he needed only one pair of shoes for a whole year. There were some restrictions and there was only one pair of shoes per individual. Why? He did not know. He said: 'Why is it that I can have only one pair of shoes for an entire year? I do wear out my shoes.' He was told it is essentially one pair of shoes or no shoes. Wayne came to me basically to discuss a range of issues relating to the NDIS and his plan and also to explain to me that he was a man who needed more than one pair of shoes. I do not think that that is a huge ask.
The NDIS has been designed to be tailored to the specific needs of specific individuals living with a disability; therefore, we need to have some thinking that embraces that and actually acknowledges that tailoring means that there is not one size that fits all. That is vitally important for the NDIA, so that we do not get Elise's experience, where there is partial funding for the specific bed she needs according to an occupational therapist, or get the experience of dear Wayne, who can have only one pair of shoes a year to wear. I do want to discuss Wayne, because, as I said, he is a particularly exceptional individual. Even though Wayne is only allowed to have one pair of shoes funded by the NDIS, he is an extraordinary young man. I recently took part in the Share the Dignity campaign, where I did a call-out for people to provide sanitary napkins and tampons for homeless women. The evidence shows that homeless women, in particular, or those fleeing domestic violence, often forgo a meal once a month so that they can buy sanitary items. I did the call-out for people to take part in the Share the Dignity campaign and, as a result of the overwhelming—as always—generosity of Canberrans, it means that 140 homeless women, who are fleeing domestic violence, now do not have to make that monthly choice between a meal and sanitary items.
Wayne is a legend who actually donated $300 worth of items. He came along to my office with all these tubs, because he recently wrote a book called Anecdotes of a Disabled Gay. The book is partly tongue-in-cheek, but it also talks about the way he is treated in so many different ways because of his disability. The book went on sale earlier this year and has had a great response, and Wayne was able to donate $300 from the sale of his book to the Share the Dignity campaign. Wayne, as I said, is a legend, even though he is only allowed to buy one pair of shoes under the NDIS.
A number of recent inquiries and reports have documented the weaknesses of the current safeguarding arrangements for disability services, many of which result from a disconnect between quality assurance and oversight regulatory functions. This bill establishes an independent national commission that will essentially implement the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework and give effect to the government's regulatory responsibilities under the framework. This framework is vital to the success of the NDIS and it represents a significant shift in the way the NDIS operates. As the explanatory memorandum to the bill says, it means that the commission will be a fit-for-purpose, evidence based, risk-responsive regulator of the new and emerging NDIS provider market.
Concerns have been raised about this bill by states, unions and stakeholders, and they have suggested the bill provides too much discretionary power to the minister to make regulations relating to the framework, which will not require consensus from the states or territories and which will undermine the consistency of the national scheme. They have suggested it will only cover NDIS funded supports, leaving people using services outside the NDIS uncovered by the provisions of the bill. That is why we welcome the fact that this bill has been referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry, and I look forward to reviewing the submissions from 28 July and the report that is scheduled to be tabled in September.
We want the NDIS to work and we want the government to get it right. That is why, last month, Labor announced that, should we win the next election, we will establish a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disability. The continued abuse of Australians with disability by people who are meant to care for them demands a royal commission. I do not know whether you have heard stories, Deputy Speaker Kelly, but since I have been the member for Canberra I have heard some absolutely horrific stories of abuse of people living with a disability.
People with disabilities are a marginalised group in Australia. People with disabilities experience 29 per cent less participation in the workforce; 2½ times the rate of poverty in the general population; lower levels of education; and stigma and stereotyping. They also experience isolation and social exclusion. They experience violence in all its shapes and forms, such as withholding essential disability aids or supports, or being pushed out of wheelchairs. I have heard of women being pushed out of wheelchairs and left stranded and defenceless in their own homes. People living with disability have their fears or their paranoia incited. People with disability are being left in uncomfortable or humiliating situations, being victims of chemical restraint and subject to sexual violence.
Seventy per cent of women with disabilities have experienced sexual violence; 90 per cent of women with intellectual disabilities have experienced rape or sexual assault; and 25 per cent of rapes are of women with disabilities. In Canberra, 46 per cent of women who reported violence were women with disabilities, and that is an alarming rate, given only 17 per cent of women in the ACT have disabilities.
That is why it is vital that for these reasons—the sexual abuse, the chemical restraint, the physical restraint, the withholding, the inciting of fear and paranoia—and many more, and there are many, many more stories, that we need a royal commission into the abuse and sexual assault of those Australians living with a disability.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): The member for Fisher will have until 1.30. You will be interrupted at 1.30 but have time to continue after.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:26): Thank you. I remember one of the most challenging days in my life was the day when I found out that our fourth daughter was going to be born with disabilities, if she was going to survive the pregnancy at all. I remember sitting in that doctor's room when the scans were being done and watching all of the frowns. We knew something was up, and it was very, very sad day. When our daughter was born, that was great—and she survived the pregnancy, survived the birth—but there was a realisation that this was going to be a challenging upbringing.
As time went on and as she grew older, I became aware of the challenges and struggles that many families face that have children with a disability. In the broader scheme of things—and I hesitate to say it this way—we were let off lightly. There are many, many families that look after children with disabilities where the parents live in anguish as to who will look after their children when they pass and there are many families that will look after their children until they pass. Most parents look forward to getting their children off their hands as they reach adulthood or thereabouts—perhaps when they finish uni—but there are many families in our community who will never enjoy this opportunity and they will have to look after their disabled children forever and a day. I thank my lucky stars that I do not think my wife and I will be in that cohort.
This government is committed absolutely 100 per cent rolled gold, lock, stock and barrel, to delivering a fully functional, fully funded NDIS. This bill that is being put forward today is another stark example of the difference between this government and Labor when it comes to operating the NDIS.
This government, as I said, is fully committed to implementing the NDIS, because we understand what a huge undertaking it is. It is one of the largest social and economic reforms in the history of this country from the 22,000 people who were assisted in trial sites at the end of 2015 to 460,000 people in 2019 to 2020, including thousands of children through early childhood and early intervention approaches. I only wish that we had had access to the NDIS when my youngest daughter Sarah was in her infancy because I am sure that it would have helped her no end.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Fisher will be given an opportunity at that time to complete his contribution.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Eid-ul-Fitr
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:30): A couple of days after parliament rises, Muslim communities will be celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr, and I thought it was appropriate to give the welcoming congratulations now. The celebration is highly anticipated, marking the end of the month-long fast of Ramadan. Eid-ul-Fitr is signalled by the sighting of the crescent moon, and with the final iftar, the breaking of the fast, the night before, families, friends and community make their final Ramadan prayers and prepare for the celebrations the next day.
After the morning Eid prayers, traditionally at the mosque, Muslims visit family and friends, eating mamoul—a sweet shortbread filled with dates, walnuts or pistachios—and drinking a warm cup of tea, fragrant with different spices depending on the region of your heritage. Children's faces beam with excitement as they parade their new outfits. It is a joyous occasion and provides the opportunity for Muslims to reunite with family and friends, sharing stories from Ramadan and sending prayers and blessings to one another for the year to come. It marks the end of a month which many thousands of Australians have dedicated to fasting, praying and performing acts of charity. That is something worth celebrating and something that should be acknowledged in this parliament. Eid Mubarak!
Forrest Electorate: South West Football League
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (13:31): Congratulations to the South West Football League women's team, who created history by winning the first interleague match against the Peel Football and Netball League in Mandurah as part of the country championships. This is inspiring countless young girls, who can play what is the best game in the world. We saw some amazingly good skills, great skills, from these women footballers, playing really top-quality football. South West full-forward Bethany Bond was best on ground, and she kicked eight goals, seven before half-time. Bethany was ably assisted by captain Trish Lake in front of goals as well, who booted six of her own goals. Larisa Versaci and Kristy Larsen were fantastic in the middle of the ground and they worked hard right throughout the game—again, there were great skills on display.
What excellent work by the inaugural coach, Teagan Smith. She has done a great job, a fantastic job, of guiding this side to their first-ever win in this type of competition. And they have only been training together for three weeks.
The South West Football League women's group is in its first season, with Bunbury, Busselton, Carey Park, Harvey, Harvey Brunswick Leschenault and South Bunbury all fielding fantastic women's sides. Well done to the South West Football League altogether, and well done to the South West Football League women's team! Congratulations to you for inspiring and making history.
Medicare
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (13:33): I rise to speak in relation to the Medicare Guarantee Bill, which was debated in the chamber earlier this week. I am hoping that today I will be able to continue on with parts of my speech without the Leader of the House attempting to gag me. Indeed, with the government constantly talking about freedom of speech, it quickly became clear to me that the government only wishes to offer freedom of speech to those who seek their political purpose. This government no more guarantees Medicare than the spider guarantees safety to the fly. I cannot help but wonder why the government would want to waste over an hour trying to gag Labor from raising some of these very valid concerns. Perhaps it is because those opposite know that this legislation is farcical—proof that the government cannot be trusted to defend Medicare. This bill is a blatant attempt to mislead the public into believing that the conservatives share Labor values. They do not.
I reiterate that this government should not be allowed to sell off our health data as they have done with the Australian bowel cancer register. Our health data will determine our treatment, health management and outcomes in the future, and it will be disastrous if this is sold off to private enterprise. This can all be managed through the Medicare system. We need Medicare to be strengthened and reinforced—not hollowed out and destroyed, which is what this government wants to do. I cannot tell you how important this is for our health futures. This government must not be allowed to sell off any more of our health data and our health gold for the future of our children and grandchildren. (Time expired)
Groom Electorate: Tourism Darling Downs
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (13:34): Tourism Darling Downs was formed in May to develop and promote our region and its experiences to visitors, boosting the benefit to the local economy as a result. Its formal launch last Tuesday, 15 June, saw 500 people gather at the Wellcamp airport for what is being heralded as a new era for this industry in our regional area. I am pleased to see linkages in place with Tourism and Events Queensland, the regional tourism organisation, local councils and industry bodies to support this mission. This is an industry-led imitative focused on increasing the awareness and appeal of our region and, ultimately, more visitors, longer stays and increased expenditure per stay. One of our attractions, the Jondaryan woolshed, which was built in 1961, held the inaugural Queensland Fiery Foods Festival this past weekend, and it was good to join many locals who were in attendance.
I say to the tourism industry in general and particularly to Tourism Australia: you must acknowledge the potential of regional areas, such as ours. It is not just about Sydney, Melbourne and the Gold Coast, for example, it is about regional Australia with the many attractions reflecting all sorts of experiences to do with agribusiness, food tourism et cetera. That is the future for tourism.
Bass Electorate: Community Kitchen
Mr HART (Bass) (13:36): Today I would like to acknowledge a community initiative that is helping migrants to feel welcome and is raising cultural awareness in my electorate of Bass. The Community Kitchen project is a collaborative project between the Migrant Resource Centre Northern Tasmania and the Inveresk Tavern, where different migrant groups take on the cooking duties at the Tavern each Sunday afternoon.
This project has been a big hit in Launceston and has received national media coverage, with excellent attendance and dishes often selling out before closing time. The Community Kitchen gives our migrant groups a chance to build skills and experience as well as raising funds for their communities. That is not to mention the social connections and capacity building that participants are enjoying.
Around 200 people are settled in Launceston each year, with 13 migrant groups now resident in the city, eight of whom are involved in the Community Kitchen—including groups representing Bhutan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Eritrea and the Congo. It is fantastic to see local residents engaging with local migrant communities through the universal language of food.
I would like to congratulate the Migrant Resource Centre and the Inveresk Tavern on this fantastic initiative and thank each of the migrant groups involved for sharing a part of their culture with the Launceston community. Particularly having regard to the attack on multiculturalism, which should see this week an introduction of the new citizenship legislation, I commend to this House the initiatives that are taking place in local communities to enhance our multicultural future.
Western Australia: Goods and Services Tax
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (13:37): I congratulate all WA Liberal members and senators for their work to date to achieve real reform of the GST distribution. The commitment by this government to a floor in the GST is a commitment only made by the Liberal side of politics. I am pleased that both sides of politics in Western Australia have welcomed the Productivity Commission inquiry in horizontal fiscal equalisation.
As the Treasurer noted, this review has only happened through the strong advocacy from WA Liberal members and senators. For too long WA has expressed outrage about the GST because, rightly, it is a travesty. The perverse distribution of GST is impacting our national economy. Australia will benefit from GST reform that rewards and incentivises productivity and economic development—nation-wide.
I welcome the work done by the Minerals Council, a national peak body taking leadership to get real reform. I also welcome the advocacy of the WA CCI—championing WA. I expect their success will be measured on whether they can convince national peak organisations across Australia, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, not only to understand the need for reform but also to make submissions to the Productivity Commission inquiry that supports GST reform in the national interest.
I encourage all individuals and organisations wanting real, long-lasting GST reform that benefits Australia to make their submissions, by 30 June, to the Productivity Commission.
Tasmania: Schools
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:39): I originally wanted to rise to my feet to talk on penalty rates and how 7,400 people who work in retail, hospitality and the like will be affected by penalty rate cuts come 1 July—$77 a week out of their pay packets. These are the sorts of people who can least afford a pay cut in this country, and that is what they are facing on 1 July, on the same day that these guys want to put in a millionaire tax cut and are still trying to push through $65 billion in tax cuts for big business.
Now we hear in the Senate that the Tasmanian independent Senator Jacqui Lambie has apparently cut a deal with the government on Gonski, on education funding. This is just another slap in the face for Tasmanian kids because the vast majority of Tasmanian kids are educated in public schools. This is not Gonski for public schools; it is Conski. It is absolutely terrible for public schools. Funding goes down for public schools under this plan—it does not get its fair share. There is no fair funding deal under this plan.
Under this plan the Liberals' policy means one in seven public schools gets their fair funding level of the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027. Under the Labor plan they would have been there by 2019. This deal is a con for the kids who attend public and Catholic schools in the seat of Lyons and across Tasmania. Jacqui Lambie should hang their head in shame.
Fisher Electorate: Joyce Newton
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:40): It is timely that I rise on Blue Cornflower Day in the global week for motor neurone disease to speak to the House about a shining star in the Fisher electorate who was recently diagnosed with this terrible disease.
Joyce Newton and her husband Greg have been married for 44 years. They live in the beautiful hinterland town of Maleny. Retiring from her career as a schoolteacher, Joyce dedicated herself to many community groups, eventually focusing on the Maleny swimming pool committee and the local girl guides. Joyce is also a fierce supporter of the LNP and, having been a member for 36 years, she was recently awarded a life membership.
But earlier this year Joyce Newton was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. As many in this place would know, there is no cure for motor neurone disease. Motor neurone disease is the name given to a group of diseases in which the nerve cells degenerate and die. It is these neurones that control our muscles enabling us to move, speak, breathe and swallow. It causes weaknesses in the muscles which eventually results in paralysis. At best, once diagnosed, sufferers will usually have two to three years to live.
If her history of fighting for local politics is anything to go by, Joyce will not be giving up any time soon without a very big fight. She is participating in a medical trial to provide research into the complexities of this disease in an effort to one day find cure. She is a seasoned campaigner—(Time expired)
New South Wales: Budget
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (13:42): I rise to condemn the New South Wales state government and their woeful budget. I see they are busy high-fiving themselves all over the front pages, talking up their massive surplus and posturing themselves as some sorts of economic geniuses.
It is easy to arrive at a massive surplus when you flog off just about every single public asset that you own. Let's not forget, and it feels like only yesterday, that Mike Baird had finished privatising every public asset in sight when he finally decided to privatise himself. How lucky we are in New South Wales that Gladys Berejiklian is there to continue his legacy of pawnbroking everything in the public purse.
We have seen so much crowing about the size of the surplus, but let me say this: what good are these rivers of gold if they are not flowing through all of New South Wales, least of all Western Sydney and its mighty Nepean River. Their investment in Western Sydney has been pitiful. For all their bluster, celebration and massive billboards about the Nepean Hospital, this budget only secures $34 million of an estimated $550 million required to complete the upgrade. This budget was a test of the Liberals' commitment to fixing Nepean Hospital.
I do not know about the members opposite, but for this side of the House seven per cent on any test is an absolute fail. It could not be clearer, and it gets worse. Rather than using these funds to ease pressures on families struggling with the rising cost of living, they are ratcheting it up. We have a government that is looking to slug my constituents even harder with their tax on Western Sydney with their WestConnex toll. I condemn the New South Wales government.
Suncorp Super Netball
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:43): Queensland and New South Wales love to battle it out on the sporting field, and tonight will be no exception. But I want to talk about last Saturday night, when nearly 9,000 screaming netball fans descended on the Brisbane Entertainment Centre for the climax of the Suncorp Super Netball competition with the Sunshine Coast lightning delivering a thumping 65-48 thrashing of the Sydney Giants. Lightning is the first national league sporting franchise to be based on the Sunshine Coast. They are outstanding ambassadors. They indicate exactly what typifies the Sunshine Coast. They are absolute champions. The success of the Lightning as a reigning national champion team—indeed, as the best domestic netball team in the world—is even more remarkable when you think that this club was launched only last August as a joint venture between the Melbourne Storm and the University of the Sunshine Coast. Built as a team from scratch, Lightning has astounded the national sporting community and delighted fans. Today they are not just the pride of the Sunshine Coast; they are also the pride of the mighty state of Queensland.
Indi Electorate: Alpine Resorts
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:45): Hey, colleagues, I have a warm invitation to all of you to come and visit north-east Victoria during the holiday break. Why do I say you should do that? It is because every single one of Victoria's snowfields is in the electorate of Indi. We have spent over $4.4 million of investment supporting new infrastructure. Mount Buller in the Mansfield area started a week early, Mount Hotham is delivering the most skiable terrain offered in five years, and my local ski resort of Falls Creek is just booming. So I want to congratulate the alpine resort management boards and ski companies for their efforts in continuing to support an industry which delivers over $790 million in gross domestic product and employs over 7,892 full-time equivalent staff. The ski industry is leading the way.
I would like to particularly acknowledge the work that the resorts have been doing for whole-year activities. So it is not only winter; if you cannot come now, come in summer. We have high-altitude training and bike riding with the Falls to Hotham Alpine Crossing. What I really want to do is acknowledge the work of local government. They have been visiting us this week in parliament. So, Mansfield and Benalla, it is fantastic to have you here. Thanks for having lunch with me, and I love to see your continued support for the ski industry. But, really, colleagues in the House, come and visit north-east Victoria. It is the right time to do it.
Barker Electorate: Australian Tidy Towns Awards
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:47): I rise today to celebrate Australia's tidiest town. Barmera, in my electorate, is a Riverland town of around 3,000 people situated on the picturesque banks of Lake Bonney. An attempt to save water by installing a temporary regulator to block Lake Bonney from the main river channel led to both environmental and social problems for the town throughout the millennial drought. The town's turnaround in fortune arguable began with the removal of this regulator in December 2010. Barmera is a markedly different place less than seven years later.
At the recent Keep Australia Beautiful national Tidy Towns awards, Barmera won a suite of awards, including the Dame Phyllis Frost Litter Prevention, Waste Management and Resource Recovery award; the Environmental Education award, which it won jointly with Horsham; the Young Legends award; and the Community Action and Wellbeing award. Congratulations to the town on each of these achievements. But, undoubtedly, the biggest win to note was that Barmera also took out the award of overall winner and can now proudly declare itself our nation's tidiest town. I congratulate the community on this amazing achievement. It is a testament to that community and to its volunteers for their efforts in cultivating a vibrant, attractive, engaging and sustainable town that is an example to communities nationwide.
Canberra Electorate: Broadband
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:48): The Brodtmann Bulletin hit the streets this week. It highlights the appalling news that Canberrans have been sending me—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): I remind the member of the Canberra about the use of props.
Ms BRODTMANN: over the last two years on their internet speeds. We are talking about less than one megabit per second across so many parts of Canberra, particularly the south-east area of Tuggeranong—this, in the nation's capital; this, in 2017. In response to this fabulous campaign, I have been inundated with more speeds from Canberrans. Pat in Fyshwick advised 3.39 megabits per second download and 0.87 megabits per second upload. Lee and Joe in Calwell advised 0.13 megabits per second download and 0.26 megabits per second upload.
It is absolutely appalling that Canberrans are dealing with these absolutely appalling speeds in 2017, in the nation's capital. It is impeding their ability to take part in educational opportunities. It is impeding their ability to take part in business opportunities. Many of them cannot work from home. They have to hire office space or even go down to cafes. That is not just for the APVMA staff.
Canberra, keep sending me your speeds. Send a message to the Turnbull government— (Time expired)
Mental Health
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (13:50): In my first speech I highlighted the disturbing statistic that, on average, twice as many Australians take their own life as die on our national roads each year, and my electorate of Wide Bay has a higher-than-national-average of suicide. The fact that the biggest killer of men between the age of 15 and 44 is suicide is also a grim reminder of the size of this problem.
Talking about mental health and suicide prevention is needed, but practical tools to help people experiencing mental illness or thoughts of suicide are vitally important. Recently, I was encouraged to be made aware of a new mobile phone app called BeyondNow. The BeyondNow app was created by beyondblue, drawing on funding from Movember and the knowledge of an expert advisory panel of leading researchers and practitioners in the suicide prevention field.
The app helps people to create a safety plan, which is a structured plan that someone can create with their support network or health professionals when times are good. When needed, a person having suicidal thoughts or feelings can activate their safety plan via the BeyondNow app, making available personally-tailored strategies and contacts that could save their life.
I commend beyondblue for their work in producing this BeyondNow app and encourage people to access beyondblue's website to find out more.
Western Australia: Shipbuilding
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:51): When it comes to the construction and development of Western Australia's naval defence capacity, the Liberal Party would have you believe that they are doing a fantastic job at delivering thousands and thousands of jobs for the Western Australian shipbuilding industry, focused on the Australian Marine Complex at Henderson in the electorate of Fremantle.
Senator Cormann and the member for Curtin would have us believe from their full-page ads spreads in The West Australian, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, that WA is 50 per cent of our nation's new shipbuilding program. They could not be further from the truth. Once again, the Turnbull Liberal government is failing WA. Despite having the members of Curtin and Pearce as well as Senators Cormann and Cash in the cabinet room and the members for Stirling and Hasluck sitting in the ministry, Western Australia is only in line to receive four per cent of the total share of the $90 billion federal shipbuilding budget.
There are WA companies ready to go with more shipbuilding work in WA—Austal, Civmec, Hofmann Engineering and many others—not just down at the AMC, but in my electorate of Burt as well. They have the technology, skills and the highly-trained WA workforce. What they do not have are strong advocates for a Western Australian shipbuilding industry in this federal government, despite the glorious job that the deputy Liberal leader may think that she is doing.
Goods and Services Tax
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:53): I rise today to remind the House of what is undoubtedly the most important issue in Western Australia right now, and that is our paltry, miserable share of GST revenue. Let me put it this way: Western Australians are fed up. Those other states who have stood in the way of developing their economies by pumping up public servant pay while stamping on resources development do not deserve the GST money of Western Australians.
I have more resource projects in my electorate than anywhere in Western Australia.
Mr Hammond interjecting—
Ms Madeleine King interjecting—
Ms PRICE: I will just stop and take the interjections. WA Labor members, rather than yelling at me, why don't you yell at your colleagues around the country to ensure that Western Australia gets a fair share.
I shall continue. What we find is that the state government has to contribute significantly to towns like mine, together with the resources companies. It is not our fault that we have a poor share of the GST, and it is not our fault that we have developed our natural resources, that we have provided jobs for our kids—and, by the way, many jobs for young people from all around the country. It is not our fault, but we have strived to do better in our state.
It is timely that we see in The West Australian newspaper today that the New South Wales government has now joined WA's call for an overhaul of the GST model, as we see that NSW's share will now drop to 79c. As the New South Wales Treasurer has said, 'The current model of GST distribution is a tax on our success.' In WA, we could not agree more.
Parliamentary Touch Football State of Origin
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (13:54): I have great news for the parliament, great news for the House, which is that today the mighty New South Wales parliamentary touch team demolished Queensland 9-4. It was an awesome effort, led by our courageous leader, the member for Mitchell. We saw stout defence from the members for Macarthur and Solomon, but my highlight was the member for Riverina's taking advantage of very sluggish defence on the Queensland left wing by Senator Hanson—I do not know what that says about One Nation and their defence. It was a magnificent sight to see the member for Riverina step Senator Hanson to score in the corner. I would be too modest to note that I happened to slice between the member for Petrie and the Deputy Prime Minister to score a try as well. The end result was a demolition.
I should note that the last time New South Wales won the parliamentary State of Origin touchwas 2014 when the mighty New South Wales Blues beat Queensland. Hopefully, that augurs well for tonight. I wish good luck to all the New South Wales Origin team. Let us hope Boyd Cordner, a Taree old boy, leads the team very well to glory, with Mitchell Pearce playing the whole game and scoring the winning try to bring them home. Go the mighty Blues! Let's crush the Cane Toads.
Thomas, Mr Paul, AO
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:56): I am proud to acknowledge one of my constituents, Paul Thomas, who became a Member in the General Division of the Order of Australia in The Queen's Birthday 2017 Honours for his local government and community contributions. Paul is a fiercely proud resident of the Yorke Peninsula and has strong history of serving the community dating back to when he was 15 years old. He has been involved with the region's biennial Cornish commemoration, the Kernewek Lowender festival for 40 years and is proud of his Cornish roots. In fact, he is a Cornish bard. Paul's father, David Thomas, was a former Wallaroo mayor, had been involved in the festival when Paul first began to get involved. Ever since, he has been associated with the festival and can appreciate what it has done for this community. He is currently the mayor of the Copper Coast council and an accountant. He has been the mayor since 2000 and a councillor in 1990. He served as a delegate to local committees, including The Farm Shed Museum and Tourism Centre, Yorke regional development board and the Yorke & Mid North Regional Development Australia board. He has been the chairman of Northern Yorke Peninsula HAC since 2010. He has been a Rotary club member for more than 25 years and a Paul Harris Fellow. He is an exception member of the community. He has also taken time to be the chair of the Barndioota Consultative Committee, and I thank him for that involvement up to this time. He is a wonderful Australian, and I congratulate him.
Disability Services
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (13:57): I received an email today, and I want to share it with the House. It goes: 'When you are a parent with a child with a disability, you have your heart broken on a regular basis not because of their disability but because of the way they are treated by other people. Today isn't any different. To hear one of our parliamentarians argue that kids with a disability do not belong in mainstream classes does not shock me but it does break my heart all over again. It does not matter how many times it has happened before, I feel the knife twist again because what the senator is saying is that our clever, funny, naughty, spunky kid doesn't deserve a good education, that she doesn't deserve the same opportunities as other kids, that she is lesser, not worthy, not really one of us.
'We have three kids. The idea that we should accept less for one than for the other two is not something we are prepared to accept—no parent would. So, while we may be heartbroken, we are also angry. And we are worried—perpetually and endlessly worried—who will fight in her corner when we are no longer around. But this is not our about us; it is about her. The think that the senator will never understand is that our daughter knows. She knows how you feel about her. She might have an intellectual disability, but she can tell. She can read you, feel you. And, while my heart breaks, so does hers.'
Australian Business Week
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (13:59): I am proud to be the major sponsor for the Gold Coast's Northern Collegiate Australian Business Week, which is a great program where senior high schools children go into a week of learning about how to run a business and be entrepreneurs, working with Ormeau Woods State High School, Helensvale, Pacific Pines, Coombabah State High School, Upper Coomera State College and Pimpama State Secondary College.
I thank the other sponsors: Aurora Training Institute—Kim Little; Club Helensvale—Len Brunt; Riviera Australia—Adam Houlahan; GCNCC—Jay Stewart; Klearnet—Mason Russell; McDonald's Pacific Pines—Mark Boothman; Workplace Training Strategies—Amelia Gow; McDonald's Helensvale—Georgia Frazer; Fidden Realty—Robyn Fidden; Harrigan's Drift Inn—Jen Fagence; Shearers Arm Tavern—Alana Baulch and Tony Jensen; MSP—Andrew Kavanagh and Synthia Kurti; Ormeau Lions Club—Margaret O'Neill and Marg Kelly; Mortgage Choice—Amanda Thomas; Griffith Uni—Simon M'zungu; Brett Ward Homes—Melissa Allen; QTMB—Steven Mitchell; and McDonald's Ormeau—Bronte Cutcher. I would also like to thank the teacher mentors who are giving their time so valuably: Janine Campbell; Judy Erntner; Jade Williams; Sam Krine; Casey Garget; Mel Bowen; Lee Johnson; Courtney Crabtree; Andrew Morgan; Naomi Wright; Wendy Coleman; Hayden Volzke; Ashlee Siniska; Mark McKague; Lorraine Cook; and Tom Crick.
Australian Business Week is a great program and it should be rolled out widely across Australian schools, and I commend all those involved.
The SPEAKER: Order! It accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Walters, Mrs Mary Shirley
The SPEAKER (14:01): I inform the House of the death on 18 June 2017 of former Senator Mary Shirley Walters. Shirley Walters, as we knew her, represented the state of Tasmania from 1975 until 1993. As a mark of respect to the memory of Shirley Walters I invite all present to stand in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places —
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Schools
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. In the Prime Minister's Closing the gap report this year the Prime Minister appears in a photo at Fregon Anangu School in the remote APY Lands. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Fregon Anangu School will lose over $100,000 next year compared to actual funding it received in 2015? Why use these kids for a photo opportunity and then cut funding to their school, one of the most disadvantaged in the nation?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:02): I thank the honourable member for her question. The work that is being done by the teachers in the APY Lands is extraordinary, and I was honoured to be in their company and in the company of the children. My government is providing more funding to support schools and particularly children in remote areas, Indigenous students, than ever before. The honourable member has a habit of producing statistics in the House. I will take her question on notice, and I will return to it later in the course of question time.
Citizenship
Ms PRICE (Durack) (14:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on the importance of updating our citizenship laws so that they reflect Australian values, including in my electorate of Durack?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:03): I thank the honourable member for her question. She knows, as all honourable members should know, that our Australian values are what define us.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: I hear scorn from the opposition. You would think, amidst all of their calls for bipartisanship, that we could at least be united on a commitment to standing for Australian values and calling on those who seek to acquire the most important office in our country, Australian citizenship, to make a commitment to our Australian values.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: And we get sneers from the opposition. Well, it was not so long ago that the member for Watson felt that not only should people who seek to become Australian citizens make a commitment to respecting Australian values but also people who seek to have a visa to come to Australia should make that commitment. The member for Watson, who denounces our citizenship law changes now, said in 2006 that it was just snobbery. In 2006, he said:
Surely, we should ask all those who enter Australia—
not just those who seek to become citizens—
to make some sort of formal commitment to respect the democracy they are about to enter …
He goes on. He waxes eloquent. You would think I had picked this up out of one of Peter Dutton's or my speeches. He said:
We should not be afraid to tell the rest of the world we're proud of the nation we built and we want everyone who lives here, even if only for a short time, to respect the place and obey our laws.
That is what he was saying then. Now he says it is snobbery to ask people to respect our values. Another aspect of the alleged snobbery is requiring people who want to become citizens to have competent English. Now he says that is snobbery too. Back in 2006, he criticised the Howard government. The member for Watson said:
We need stricter English speaking requirements for people wanting to work in Australia.
'Politicians aren't paid to watch the world,' said the young member for Watson, 'We're meant to see the problems and fix them.' (Time expired)
Schools
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's schools policy is marked by division, chaos and confusion. Public schools hate it, Catholic schools hate it, the government's own members hate it. When will the Prime Minister simply withdraw this rushed legislation, go back to the drawing board and stop $22 billion worth of cuts to schools?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:07): We may well ask when the Leader of the Opposition will stop spreading falsehoods about $22 billion that he never had—his fantasy money, his funny money. It was never, ever funded and it was never, ever paid for, and every member of the Gillard government at the time knew that. It was a parting shot. Nobody in the school sector—Catholic, independent or public school sectors—ever believed that so-called promise of an extra $22 billion. The fact is that we have put into this House legislation which delivers for the first time national, consistent and transparent needs based funding, as called for by David Gonski and as endorsed, year in and year out, by the Labor Party but never delivered. He says that he does not like our schools policy. At least we have one. The Labor Party does not have one. It has 27 conflicting, inconsistent deals—one political deal after another. Not a thread of consistency or principle ties them together other than the momentary self-interest of the Labor Party back in 2012. That was the result of a Labor government that could not see past their immediate, short-term political advantage. They kicked that can down the road and, as usual, it is the coalition in government that is cleaning up Labor's mess. We are delivering consistent, needs based and transparent funding for all Australian schools.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: I hear the member for Gorton calling out. He is interjecting. He says it is a joke. Let us hear from the member for O'Connor and Labor members about how much of a joke they think the CFMEU's—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: The member for Gorton, I should say. Let him speak up today and tell us how much of a joke or how humorous John Setka's threats to track down ABCC inspectors, to threaten them with violence, were. They challenge us because we say we should be proud of Australian values, and they sit in this House representing and funded by a union which defies the rule of law, which threatens officials of the Commonwealth with violence, at a rally to which the Leader of the Opposition sent a letter encouraging them to keep up the fight. Where are the values, where is the principle, where is the rule of law from Labor?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides. The member for Whitlam. The member for Barton. I refer members to my statement yesterday. Do not expect to be warned before you are ejected. The level of interjections is far too high.
Citizenship
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (14:11): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection—and my sympathies to him and other Queenslanders in advance of tonight! Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to strengthen the requirements for Australian citizenship? Why are Australian values and the English language important? Is the minister aware of any alternative approach?
Dr Aly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan is warned.
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay is warned.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:11): Not that I am offended by that scarf, but Queensland by 10 tonight—no question! That was not as popular as I thought in this chamber. I thought we had plenty of Queenslanders here.
I want to say a couple of things in relation to the government's proposal around tightening-up of our citizenship laws—but it has not been a very good 24 hours for the member for Watson. As the Prime Minister pointed out before, things have not been very good for our friend, have they?
The SPEAKER: The minister knows the rules on props.
Mr DUTTON: This is this morning's paper, which points to a couple of conflicting statements made by the honourable member opposite. We are trying to say to the Australian public through this debate—and we have asked for bipartisan support from Labor—that we want to make sure that Australian citizenship remains the cherished prize that it is. We want to make sure that people who are coming to become Australian citizens have a competent level of English proficiency. We want people to be able to integrate not only into their local communities but into schools and workplaces. We want them to be as successful as they possibly can be.
The trouble is that there is division across the Labor Party. What did they do yesterday? They came out with this red herring that somehow they were opposed to that plan, when we know that only a few short years ago the honourable member opposite was clearly in favour, as the Prime Minister pointed out before, of tougher English-language requirements. This is a red herring. They are not opposed to increasing the one-year permanent residency to three years before people can apply for citizenship. That is all a red herring.
The problem is that the same left-wing members of the Labor Party who are opposed to our boats policy are the people who are holding this Leader of the Opposition hostage on what is a perfectly commonsense approach that the government is taking. Do not take my word for it, Mr Speaker. Graham Richardson, writing in The Australian today, said:
Given that almost half the Labor caucus has serious doubts about supporting tough legislation on refugees and turning back the boats …
That was a quote from Graham Richardson. He defines the modern Labor Party—that is, that they are torn apart internally. They do not want the public to see it. The public had it on display, because we know that, when the member for Watson was the immigration minister, he was not very successful then either, as the immigration minister, because we know that 83 boats came on his watch and we know that 1,100 kids went into detention. So I would say to the Australian public: do not trust Labor when it comes to boats and do not trust Labor when it comes to national security. That is very clear. The Labor Party continue to tear themselves apart, and this Leader of the Opposition has no ability to show the leadership that is required in the office that he holds.
Schools
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (14:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. Data released by the New South Wales government shows that, because of the Prime Minister's $22 billion cut to schools, in the electorate of Gilmore over the next two years over $1.3 million will be cut from Nowra East Public School and over $890,000 will be cut from Sanctuary Point Public School. Has the member for Gilmore made any representations at all to the Prime Minister about these cuts to schools in her electorate?
The SPEAKER: I am ruling that question out of order. It is very clearly out of order because the Prime Minister is not responsible for the statements of other members, whether they have made representations or not.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker.
The SPEAKER: I will hear the Manager of Opposition Business out of deference.
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting.
Mr Burke: It has always, I understand, been allowed to ask a minister what representations they have received from various groups and various stakeholders on any issue.
Mr Fletcher: Is this what you believe now or what you have heard?
The SPEAKER: The Minister for Urban Infrastructure is warned.
Mr Burke: I am trying to work out why it is legitimate for us to ask about whether an education group or a state government has made representations to a minister or the Prime Minister and not ask whether an elected member of parliament has.
Mrs Sudmalis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gilmore will cease interjecting. In fairness to the member for Cunningham and the Manager of Opposition Business, this is not a kneejerk ruling I have made. I did allow a similar question which I felt I was in error I think last week.
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, it was further ago than yesterday. Sometimes yesterday feels like last week. Having reflected on the matter, I do not think that those sorts of fishing expedition questions that do not go to the Prime Minister's responsibilities or any minister's responsibilities are desirable and fit within the standing orders. I am prepared to obviously allow questions that go to a minister's responsibilities, but on this occasion I just do not feel that those questions are within the standing orders. I really do not. The member for Cunningham.
Ms Bird: Mr Speaker, it is a different position. Would I be able to rephrase the question?
The SPEAKER: I will give the member an opportunity to rephrase the question.
Ms Bird: I thank the Speaker.
Schools
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (14:17): My question is to the Prime Minister. Data released by the New South Wales government shows that, because of the Prime Minister's $22 billion cut to schools, in the electorate of Gilmore over the next two years over $1.3 million will be cut from Nowra East Public School and over $890,000 will be cut from Sanctuary Point Public School. What would the Prime Minister say to the parents of the students in those schools about these cuts?
The SPEAKER: The question is completely in order. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:18): I thank the honourable member for her question. I have to say that her colleagues on the opposition benches were shouting so loudly that I could not hear her question on the previous occasion, so I thank her and her colleagues at least for letting me understand her question. Let me say this to her: all of the schools in the electorate of Gilmore will receive substantially more funding under the government's school funding program. That is the first point.
The second point is that the $22 billion figure the honourable member talks about is complete fantasy money. It never existed. We are committing an additional $18.6 billion to schools—Catholic, independent and public schools—right across Australia, including in the electorate of Gilmore and, indeed, in the honourable member's electorate. The honourable members opposite can fantasise about the money that they never had, they never paid for and they never financed. They can fantasise about that as much as they like. It is not an aspiration on their part; it is a hallucination. It was never there.
The reality is that the parents in the honourable member's electorate and in the member for Gilmore's electorate deserve to know that the funding is there—it is committed, it is paid for and it is in the budget. We have done that. We have done the hard yards. We have raised additional revenue. We have made savings. We have delivered a budget that can fund that substantial increase in funding for schools—the largest level of Commonwealth funding for schools in our history.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:19): I want to welcome some people to question time. I am pleased to inform the House we have joining us in the gallery today His Imperial Highness, Prince Ermias Sahle Selassie, President of the Crown Council of Ethiopia, and former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Hon. Shane Stone AC QC. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you both. I would also like to inform the House we have in the gallery former senator the Hon. Alan Ferguson. On behalf of the House, I extend a welcome to you as well. I would also like to inform the House we have a special visitor joining us from the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji, the Hon. Inia Seruiratu, the Minister for Agriculture, Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster Management. While I am at it, I would also like to inform the House that we have a delegation from the Carlton Football Club here today, led by the President, Mark LoGiudice. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Infrastructure
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Minister, in 2016, the government commissioned an independent review of the Regional Development Australia program to make recommendations on the future scope, structure and delivery model of RDAs. I understand that the government received the final report of the independent reviewer, the Hon. Warwick Smith, in January. Minister, RDAs have the ability to play a crucial part in the inquiry into regional development and decentralisation which has been undertaken by the House of Representatives, but to do this they need certainty about their future. Minister, can you tell the House when the government will release this report, provide certainty to the RDAs and allow them to continue to play an active role in forming the regional agenda? (Time expired)
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:22): I thank the member for her interest and her ongoing involvement in regional development. As she referred to, the independent review of the RDA program has been submitted to the minister, and the government is considering its response. I had the opportunity this week, as I am sure the member has had—as there have been many councils, mayors and RDAs in the parliament this week for the ALGA conference—and it is important that we have the opportunity, to listen to those local communities' ideas. The minister is considering the report. As part of the government's ongoing commitment to regional growth, it is important that we liaise with local communities about regional opportunities.
The government is committed to regional Australia. There are many ways that we can work with our local communities to invest in their future. On this side of the House we do believe in the future of regional Australia; I am sure the member for Indi does as well. We are working to build a better, stronger and safer regional Australia where everyone can get ahead. You would have seen programs announced in the most recent budget which go directly to that. We are delivering a record $75 billion infrastructure investment program, for projects right around regional Australia, which will assist with the regional development and decentralisation committee's challenge that the member referred to.
I look at projects like the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail, which will go through the member's own electorate, but, of course, is being championed by the Deputy Prime Minister himself, the member for Groom, the member for Riverina, the member for Maranoa—and the member for Parkes has raised it once or twice or a thousand times as well. The Pacific Highway duplication is another project which has been well received throughout regional Australia, by the member for Lyne, the member for Page and the member for Cowper. We have seen $6.7 billion for the Bruce Highway program, which has been very well received throughout regional Australia.
Ms McGowan: Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance to the question: the question was, 'When will the report be released?'
The SPEAKER: The member for Indi does make a valid point of order, inasmuch as that was one question. There were a couple of questions in her 45-second question, but I do direct the minister to that part of it.
Mr CHESTER: The member did refer to decentralisation and regional development opportunities and the role of the RDAs in that. I acknowledge that the minister has received the report, and the government is considering its response as we speak. She did refer to opportunities for regional growth in her own electorate. There are commitments being made by the Turnbull-Joyce government, commitments that have seen the Great Alpine Road upgrades progressing, the Kiewa Valley Highway upgrade, and the North East railway line receiving $100 million. The member for Indi's local council has received $14.5 million through Roads to Recovery, because we have committed to those programs, like Roads to Recovery, black spots, bridges renewal, and mobile phone blackspots—all these programs which are delivering for regional committees. So I say to the member for Indi: get on board. Get on board this team. This is a team that stands up for regional Australia: the Turnbull-Joyce team actually stands up for regional Australia. Do not be like the Leader of the Opposition, who cannot decide whether he barracks for the Swans or the Magpies; you have got to pick a team! The member for Kooyong picked a team; he picked the Blues. You have to pick a team, member for Indi. This Turnbull-Joyce team is delivering for regional Australia and you should get on board.
Global Security
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (14:25): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on recent terror attacks overseas, and steps this government is taking to keep Australians safe both here and abroad?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:25): I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. Mr Speaker, the world is witnessing a wave of hate-driven and brutal terrorist attacks, particularly over the last two months. In fact, this morning we learned that there had been another terror incident overnight in Brussels, and a short while ago we learned that ISIS-linked gunmen tried to take a school hostage in the southern Philippines about 200 kilometres south of Marawi. In Afghanistan, a truck bomb killed 90 people in the capital of Kabul. This is just in the last few weeks. In Iran, ISIS fighters attacked the parliament and a shrine. In Iraq, terrorists attacked civilians and killed, amongst others, a young Australian girl in Baghdad. In Somalia, civilians and soldiers have been killed by the ISIS-linked Al-Shabaab. In Mali, a hotel resort was attacked by terrorist fighters linked to al-Qaeda. In France and Britain, we have also seen recent attacks; in the United Kingdom alone, four terrorist attacks in the last month. And of course, we all recall the tragedy on London Bridge when two Australians were killed. Just two days ago, worshippers at a London mosque were attacked, thus adding to the cycle of violence. In our own region in the last couple of weeks, Indonesia has suffered a number of terrorist attacks; and in the Philippines, the armed forces are battling to retake the city of Marawi, and this is following a month of fighting insurgents and ISIS-inspired militants. And of course in Melbourne, there was an attack by an ISIS-inspired killer, bringing to five the number of terrorist attacks that we have suffered in Australia since September of 2014.
The Australian government is doing everything we can to keep Australians safe, here and abroad. We are fighting with the coalition forces, we are sharing information with countries in our region, we are monitoring foreign terrorist fighters—we are cancelling their passports so that they cannot travel overseas and we are monitoring their activities. We are also working very closely with nations in our region on counterterrorism, so that we can destroy these terrorist organisations that are seeking to destroy our people and our way of life. And there is also a humanitarian cost. Yesterday, I announced that the Australian government would provide $1 million to the Philippines to help support those who are besieged by terrorists in the southern Philippines.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:28): The opposition seeks to rise to support and endorse the remarks of the foreign minister. The list that she read out of terror incidents, murder and evil around the world—less so but certainly including in Australia—reminds all of us in this place that there are some things more important than some of what we argue about, so we acknowledge the remarks.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Schools
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (14:29): My question is to the Prime Minister. Data released by the New South Wales government shows that, because of the Prime Minister's $22 billion cuts to schools, in the electorate of Robertson over the next two years—
Mr Falinski interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar is warned. The member for Dobell will begin her question again from the beginning.
Ms McBRIDE: My question is to the Prime Minister. Data released by the New South Wales government shows that, because of the Prime Minister's $22 billion cut to schools, in the electorate of Robertson over the next two years over $1.8 million will be cut from Brisbane Waters Secondary College and over $640,000 will be cut from Ettalong Public School. What would the Prime Minister say to the families with children at these schools?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:30): I thank the member for her question and the Prime Minister for giving me the opportunity to respond. The truth is that, in the electorate of Robertson and in the electorate of Dobell, funding for all schools is going up; it is not going down. The problem with the premise of the member's question is it is all based on an untruth, because the funding that Labor promised was there was never there; it is all fake money. There was never money to pay for the things that Labor was talking about.
I agree with the member for Mayo who, in making remarks earlier today about the education funding debate, said, 'The whole debate has been about comparing apples'—that is, the funding offered by the government—'with imaginary pears,' which is what is offered by the Labor Party. Now, we do know there is enough imaginary fruit on that side of the parliament to make an entire magic pudding when it comes to budgets, because we know that is how they do their budgets.
We also know that the way Labor do budgets is they spend the same money over and over and over again. They say they are going to reverse the enterprise tax plan. By doing that, they say they are going to fund not just budget repair, not just schools, not just retaining a AAA, not just the NDIS, not just health and hospitals, not just universities and, indeed, foreign aid. The shadow Treasurer yesterday said he does not like hypothecation of revenue to specific purposes. The reason he does not like to do that is he cannot spend the money six times; he can only spend it once. It is fake money the Labor Party are talking about. It is fake money backed up by fake promises. The Australian people are tired of that fake money and the fake approach of the Labor Party. It is no coincidence that the Leader of the Opposition's initials are BS, because he is a fraud.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will return to the dispatch box.
Mr Dreyfus: Withdraw both.
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned. I have asked the Treasurer to come back. I do not need the member for Isaacs for any advice on any subject. The Treasurer will withdraw both statements.
Mr Morrison: I withdraw.
Building and Construction Industry
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister update the House on the government's commitment to the Australian Building and Construction Commission? And is the minister aware of any opposition to the return of the rule of law to the building and construction sites around the country?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:33): I thank the member for his question. What more evidence does the Leader of the Opposition need that he has to deal with this CFMEU problem? It is extraordinary that yesterday the Victorian secretary of the CFMEU, John Setka, said of the Australian Building and Construction Commission inspectors:
Let me give a dire warning to the ABCC inspectors: be careful what you do.
… … …
We're going to expose them all.
We will lobby their neighbourhoods. We will tell them who lives in that house.
… … …
They will not be able to show their faces anywhere. Their kids will be ashamed of who their parents are …
John Setka, a man who was being praised yesterday by the member for Bendigo in this House, has uttered unAustralian terms. They are reprehensible terms. They are intimidation of the worst kind. It is remarkable that they would be defended by anyone.
The member for Grayndler knew what to say. He was on radio with me this morning and he said, 'The idea that people should be targeted is completely reprehensible.' He is absolutely right. All the Leader of the Opposition could manage was, 'I and federal Labor disassociate ourselves with what was said.' There was no condemnation of the CFMEU and no condemnation of John Setka. He is simply trying to hang on to his umbilical-cord-like attachment to the CFMEU and John Setka and to their money, the $3 million of donations that the CFMEU has made to the Labor Party since the Leader of the Opposition was leader in 2013. If he really meant it, if he really wanted to stand up for law-abiding Australians rather than the CFMEU, for Australians who are just doing their jobs every day, he would refuse to take any more donations from the CFMEU. He would disaffiliate the CFMEU from the Labor Party. He would not allow the CFMEU to sit in policy forums, deciding policy for the Labor Party and preselection for the people who sit in this House and in other parliaments around Australia. But he will not do that, because he is no Bob Hawke. Bob Hawke said as recently as last year:
I wouldn't tolerate it. You know what I did with the Builders Labourers Federation—I would throw them out.
Bob Hawke knows how to lead the Labor Party, not this Leader of the Opposition. This Leader of the Opposition is a lion in Canberra, talking about workers rights, but he is a mouse in Melbourne Trades Hall.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen is warned.
Schools
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. According to the National Catholic Education Commission, St Therese's Catholic Primary School in the electorate of Corangamite will have to increase its fees by as much as $2,841, because of the Prime Minister's $4.6 billion cut to Catholic schools. Why is the Prime Minister making parents of Catholic schoolchildren pay more while giving millionaires a tax cut, in just 10 days time?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:36): I thank the honourable member for her question. The Labor Party continues to try to persuade Australians that the money they never had is somehow or other being taken away. They know, and we know, that everything they said about schools was an exercise in hypocrisy. They claim to care about the students. They claim to 'give a Gonski'. They said they were going to support needs based funding. Then they did 27 separate, inconsistent deals, treating students dramatically differently from one state to another, from one deal to another. They did that, and then they offered money which they never had. They have mocked the students of Australia. Labor disrespected the teachers of Australia. They mocked them and they disrespected them.
We are standing up for the children. We have one vested interest, and it is the children of Australia. We are not representing education bureaucrats or union officials. We are representing the children and their parents who want them to get ahead, and they need to know that there is a consistent national needs based funding model. That is why it has been endorsed by David Gonski. That is why it has been endorsed by the members of his panel. That is why one educational leader after another is calling on the Senate to support it, because they know it is fair, it is consistent and it delivers the funding where it is needed.
As for the honourable member's question, right across the electorate of Corangamite schools are receiving more funding under our model, every single school. This is what we will be delivering under additional funding from that which was set out in the budget last year. We will be funding, over that period, $18.6 billion of additional funding committed, paid for and funded. And total Commonwealth funding over the 10 years is $242.3 billion, with $81 billion going to the Catholic system and $101 billion to state and territory public schools and $61 billion to independent schools. That is our commitment: the highest level of Commonwealth funding for schools ever, on a funding model that is fair, consistent, national, needs based and transparent. Labor talked about it but never did it. They were all about politics; no principles. They forgot about the children and focused on their own political ends. Our vested interest is the kids. That is our commitment.
National Security
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (14:39): My question is to the Minister for Justice and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on the government's recent investments in our law enforcement agencies, and what are the threats to those agencies?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (14:40): I thank the member for Wright for that question. In this year's budget, the government has invested a further $321 million in the Australian Federal Police. This money will go to 100 additional intelligence experts, over 100 tactical response and covert surveillance operators, and almost 100 forensic specialists, to advance our fight against crime and terrorism.
This is the largest investment in the domestic capability of the Australian Federal Police in over a decade, and no government is more committed to the Australian Federal Police than this one. But we have been reminded just yesterday that not everybody shares our commitment to the Australian Federal Police—
Mr Keogh interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Burt will leave under 94(a).
The member for Burt then left the chamber.
Mr KEENAN: Just yesterday the Victorian secretary of the CFMEU, John Setka, viciously attacked the men and women of the Australian Federal Police. Mr Speaker, I will not go through all the disgusting things that this man said about the people who are protecting us, but just let me give you the flavour of what he said. Setka said: 'The Federal Police are supposed to be protecting us from terrorism. What an'—expletive—'job they are doing at the moment, these'—expletive—'morons.' He then went on to attack the independence of the Australian Federal Police, labelling them a 'political police force,' and calling them 'Howard's henchmen' and 'Turnbull's henchmen'. Who is this guy John Setka? This guy has the rat feet of a career criminal. He has been convicted or charged of 40 separate crimes, including—and very importantly—five counts of assaulting police officers. This guy and the union he runs are factional allies of the Leader of the Opposition. He is a factional ally and an integral part of the Leader of the Opposition's political machine—so much so that he was a guest of honour at the Leader of the Opposition's election night party. When the Leader of the Opposition was asked about this at his press conference today, he said nothing about this, by the way, nothing at all until he was asked about it this morning. He said that he repudiates the remarks and that he disassociates himself from the remarks of this man. If you want to repudiate the remarks of John Setka, if you want to repudiate the CFMEU, stop taking their money—$3 million have been given by the CFMEU to the Labor Party since the member for Maribyrnong became Leader of the Opposition. Stop taking their money. Stop having them as an integral part of your political machine, and stop inviting them to your parties.
Mr Burke: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Leader of the Opposition, which begins with the words:
I repudiate in the strongest possible terms what was said yesterday.
The SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr Burke: You missed that bit!
Government members interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my right. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition.
Schools
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:43): Thank you, Mr Speaker, genuinely. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to this 1.30 pm press release from the National Catholic Education Commission which states:
Concessions, real or imagined, will not fix the problems with this rushed legislation.
It calls on senators to vote against the plan that will not deliver needs based funding. Why is this Prime Minister punishing parents who choose to give their children a Catholic education with this rushed legislation? Why won't he take it back to the drawing board and start again?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:44): The Leader of the Opposition should know the best about how much the Catholic sector is benefiting out of the Turnbull government's education plans. In the seat of Maribyrnong, St Bernadette's school in Sunshine North—a Catholic school—will get an extra $8.5 million under the Turnbull government's education plan. St Peter's school in Keilor East, also in the member for Maribyrnong's electorate—and now he turns his back—will get an extra $9.7 million. We know that the Catholic sector right across the country will be a big beneficiary of the Turnbull government's plan.
Finally, the Leader of the Opposition talks about getting messages about how to vote on this bill. Dianne Foggo AM, a former president of the Australian Education Union and former vice-president of the ACTU, wrote to all senators yesterday. This is what she had to say:
… I cannot in all conscience stay silent when there is an opportunity to change the current schools funding regime for a better one.
… … …
This is one of the most crucial potential improvements for funding for public education in decades …
So the Leader of the Opposition will tell the Catholic sector that he is the Messiah, but we really know that he is just a very naughty boy.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: The minister was quoting from a document which had funding for specific Catholic schools. I would ask that he table the document that he was quoting from.
The SPEAKER: Was the minister quoting from a confidential document?
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister says he is quoting from a confidential document.
Agricultural Exports
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (14:46): My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on new export markets for Australian agricultural exporters, particularly for red meat processors in my electorate of Flynn? What are the obstacles in the viability of this industry and in the jobs it creates for hardworking Australians?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for his question. I note the honourable member's hard work in such things such as making sure we drive ahead with the Rookwood Weir—trying to get a new dam built in Central Queensland. It is very important. To the honourable member, we are not getting much support from the Queensland Labor Party—none at all. They are pretty hopeless.
The honourable member understands all about what it is like to do a day's work. He has been a fettler, a miner, a truck driver. He understands what it is like to work and he understands how important blue-collar jobs are. I note that in the gallery I have Peter Petty. He has been a farrier. He has knocked a few sets of shoes on horses. He has Greg beside him and Mick Pearce. They are all people who have done a day's work. It is very important. We want to stand up for people who actually go to work and do a job. They might not have gone to university, they might not have been a union official, they might not have had the luck of becoming a teacher, but they get a job as a manufacturing worker. To do that, of course, you are going to need either cheap wages—and we do not want those—or cheap power.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr JOYCE: I do not know whether the member for Grayndler has ever worked. I know the member for Grayndler has never done any work. He tries to be the bovver boy; he is more the St Mary's Cathedral boy. That is the member for Grayndler. He cannot even get a question. It is very important that we understand the markets that we are opening up—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Gorton then left the chamber.
Mr JOYCE: especially the chilled market with China. We have really turned around the price of cattle. We have turned around the price of sheep. We have made sure that our rural exports have increased by 29 per cent since the Labor Party was in government. We are doing everything in our power to make sure that we get affordable and reliable power, especially to the people of North Queensland where youth unemployment is at 20 per cent. You would think that the Labor Party—especially those around Townsville—would be standing up for cheap power. You would think that those around Townsville would be talking to the Leader of the Opposition to make sure that he can say these words: coal-fired power. But he will not. It is not possible for him to say those words. He does not believe in those words. He does not believe in Labor, especially around Townsville. He does not believe in Labor around Townsville at all, but you know that. You know that he is not going to stand up for working men and women.
It is really important that we understand if we are going to stand behind those meatworkers in Rockhampton in the member for Capricornia's seat, that we have the ability to get baseload power, renewable and affordable, into those meatworks. That is the sort of delivery that we are doing, because we are going to make sure that we drive forward and we work with our state counterparts to do such things as build new coal-fired power stations, which is something the Labor Party will not do, because the Labor Party—and I say this to those from Tenterfield and from Uralla—are owned by the Greens. They have given up on labourers. They no longer believe in labourers. They are a pathetic shadow of what Curtin and Chifley used to be. (Time expired)
Dr Aly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan will leave under 94(a).
The member for Cowan then left the chamber.
Schools
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. On Monday in question time, the Prime Minister claimed funding for students with a disability in Tasmania would not be cut by one-third, or $12 million, in 2018. And yesterday, the Prime Minister again refused to admit he was cutting their funding. Has the Prime Minister now seen this answer to a question on notice issued by his own education department which confirms his cut? Will the Prime Minister now admit that he misled the House on Monday, or is he really so arrogant that he cannot admit he got it wrong?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:51): The honourable member will be pleased to know that total Commonwealth funding in Tasmania will grow from an estimated $409 million in 2017 to $427 million in 2018 and, by 2027 the Commonwealth's schools funding will grow to $594 million. Commonwealth per student funding over 2018 to 2027 in Tasmania is estimated to grow 4.1 per cent on average per year.
As far as funding for students with disabilities, what is happening is that there is a move to a national measure of funding for disabilities. At the moment, each state has a different measure of disabilities, and there is a shift, which is appropriate and has been well supported, to the NCCD, nationally consistent definitions of funding. What that is going to mean is that the number of students in Tasmania who will be funded for disability will increase, but they will be funded at different levels.
Ms Plibersek: Lower!
Mr TURNBULL: If the honourable members would stop shouting, I can give them some information, if they have any interest in it. At the moment, the students in Tasmania are funded at the same level regardless of the level of disability, whether it is what is described as supplementary, substantial or extensive. Under the nationally consistent level, the funding percentage—the loading—for students with what is described as a supplementary level of disability is 42 per cent in primary and 33 per cent in secondary. At a substantial level of disability, it is 146 per cent in primary and 116 per cent in secondary. And for extensive disability, it is 312 per cent in primary and 240 per cent in secondary. That is the reason for the change. It is a nationally consistent measure. What it means is that more students in Tasmania, and indeed across the country, will be receiving supplementary support, additional support, for disabilities, but it will be done on a nationally consistent basis.
Comparing the funding under the government's nationally consistent plan, which has been agreed to by the jurisdictions, with what is happening at the moment is not comparing like with like. That is the point. It is consistent and it is transparent and, I might say, in reference to something that used to be very close to the honourable member's heart, it is needs based. It is needs based. She used to like that.
Energy
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (14:54): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance to the Australian economy of a stable and secure energy network? What are the impacts of higher electricity prices and a less stable supply on job security and the hip pockets of hardworking Australian families like those in the wonderful electorate of Goldstein?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:54): I thank the member for Goldstein, and I appreciate his interest in this very serious topic of energy affordability and security for Australians. The Turnbull government is on the side of Australians who want to have affordable, reliable and sustainable access to energy in this country. That is why in the budget we outlined a five-point plan to put downward pressure on electricity prices in this country: to secure our gas supplies; to get a fair deal for energy customers; to change the rules that are driving prices up by reforming regulations; to invest in maintaining baseload energy security regardless of where that source of energy comes from; and to invest in low-emissions technologies. This is a real plan to deliver the affordable, reliable, secure and sustainable energy that a modern economy depends on to grow and drive the incomes that Australians and Australian businesses depend on. It is technology neutral, it is resource neutral and it is ideology neutral—which is incredibly important.
Labor's response is to cheer on the closure of coal-fired power stations that provide dispatchable, reliable power to Australian businesses and Australian households. Labor's response is to cheer that on. What is the Labor Party's message to electors and people in Portland, Wollongong, the La Trobe and the Hunter Valley when they are cheering on the demise of the traditional energy producing industries of this country? They are happy to sell out one million manufacturing and mining workers in this country—one in 10 workers—for an almond milk latte with the Greens when it comes to energy policy in this country.
And they are embarrassed about their policies which are driving up prices. We all remember the shadow Treasurer's train wreck interviews when he was forced to admit that the Labor Party has a 50 per cent renewable energy target which will only drive up prices for businesses and householders alike. When Patricia Karvelas asked about this target, he said:
Well, Patricia, what we're saying is that it will … you … you.. you can't just … you… you can legislate a target, right, but that doesn't achieve the target. What achieves the target is the policy we've indicated. There is a Renewable Energy Target which is, in effect—
Patricia thankfully interrupts him and says, 'So why wouldn't you also'—and then the transcriber says, 'The shadow Treasurer exhales heavily.' I am not surprised that he would exhale heavily, because he cannot bring himself to admit to the policy that the shadow Treasurer now supports, which is— (Time expired)
Schools
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:58): My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning it is reported that a Liberal Party member and mother of a child at Corpus Christi Catholic Primary School has said about the government's cuts to Catholic schools, and I quote:
I can’t begin to describe how disappointed I am with this government right now … that we are being hung out to dry by our own MPs.
Why is the Prime Minister hanging the parents of schoolchildren out to dry just because they choose to send their children to a Catholic primary school?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:58): The funding for all school systems increases over the 10 years that we have set out: $18.6 billion in total. Funding for Catholic schools over that period is $81 billion and increases over that period by $3.4 billion in total. These are substantial increases across the Catholic systems. Catholic students across Australia will receive substantial increases in funding. That is a fact. The proposition that there is a cut is absolute nonsense. It is based on the fantasy figures of the Leader of the Opposition.
The fact of the matter is that each of the Catholic systems will receive funding in a block and they will have the ability to distribute it between their schools as they see fit. That is a fact. They will receive it in a block. The way it is estimated by the government, based on need, is fully transparent. But if the Catholic systems wish to distribute the funds and allocate them to their schools in a different manner than is set out in the estimator, that is their right, as it always has been. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that if you repeat something often enough, it will become true. It will not. The fact of the matter is that he is the one who let down Australian students. He let down Australian students. He offered more money. He never had it; he never paid for it. We are delivering it.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: The member for Sydney says they always had it. The only thing they had was a massive financial hallucination. They cannot count, they cannot be consistent, they hate transparency, and the only needs based funding they have ever focused on is the needs of the Australian Labor Party.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will now leave under 94(a).
The member for Sydney then left the chamber.
Energy
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is prioritising a stable, secure and affordable energy supply which supports jobs for hardworking Australians? What hurdles stand in the way of providing a secure and affordable electricity supply to families and businesses in my electorate of Boothby and elsewhere?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (15:01): I thank the member for Boothby for her question—
Opposition members: Shush!
The SPEAKER: Those on my left: I know the member for Kooyong started it, but two days is enough. I am sick of it.
Mr FRYDENBERG: and acknowledge her deep concern about the impact rising electricity prices are having on the households and the businesses in Mitcham, in Blackwood and across her electorate. That is why she welcomes the Turnbull government's moves to rein in the retail prices and to invest record amounts in storage technology. There is yesterday's announcement of the abolition of the limited merits review process and also the restrictions on gas exports. We are very pleased on this side of the House to see our announcements yesterday welcomed by the Grattan Institute, welcomed by Energy Consumers Australia and by the Energy Users Association of Australia. With more than two million small businesses across the country, the Council of Small Business said that the Turnbull government's moves will inhibit price rises and create downward pressure on current prices.
I am asked about alternatives and hurdles. We know that those opposite doubled the electricity prices when they were in government, we know that they gave us the citizens assembly, we know that they gave us the 'cash for clunkers', we know that they gave us the pink batts, and now they have an emissions intensity scheme, which Senator Wong herself has described as a 'mongrel' of a policy. They also have a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, which the Business Council of Australia has said is 'risky' and 'unnecessary,' and we know that our move is going to put downward pressure on prices. When the member for McMahon went on Sky TV with David Speers, he was asked about his energy policies and he was asked, 'What would be the impact on electricity prices?' to which he replied, 'Ah, well, no, no—no net impact to electricity prices.' Then David Speers, being the very good interviewer that he is, said, 'What about the impact to the budget?' This is what the member for McMahon said: 'And the, the—again, the electricity trading scheme—post, you know, it, it, it—where some people, where some—it cancels each other out, so yes.' So yes, Mr Speaker! We know that when the Labor Party were in government they doubled electricity prices. So, while the alternative Treasurer of this country might be unintelligible, we know what the Labor Party's track record is—and that is a less stable electricity system and higher prices for families and for businesses.
Workplace Relations
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, in just 10 days time, nearly 700,000 Australians will have their penalty rates cut, while millionaires will get a tax cut. Given real wages are going backwards, will the Prime Minister use what is left of this parliamentary sitting week to stop millionaires getting their tax cut and stop ordinary workers getting their pay cut?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:04): Every element of our program is designed to ensure that there is stronger economic growth and more jobs—every element of it. We are reducing business taxes. As the member for McMahon remembers very well, in the days when he was an author—his book can be acquired at any bookshop where remaindering occurs; great piles of it are there—
A government member interjecting—
Mr TURNBULL: as in Clive James's memorable verse, next to piles of 'The Kung-Fu Cookbook' and other discards, but it is there. He advocated cutting business tax because he knew that it produced more investment and hence more employment. Well, he wants to roll that back. He wants to reverse that.
One of the things we know is that, in Australia, we stand by the rule of law. We know that the rule of law protects the great and the small. It protects the small businesses. It enables them to invest with confidence. Labor, on the other hand, is out there taking money and providing letters of endorsement, Leader of the Opposition, to the CFMEU's rally yesterday in which John Setka, one of the Leader of the Opposition's major benefactors—indeed, one of his controllers—threatened to follow, track and bully ABCC inspectors. He threatened to follow them. It is important to understand the length of the threats at this rally, at which a 'Welcome; keep up the good fight' message was heard from the Leader of the Opposition. This is what John Setka said about ABCC inspectors:
We're going to expose them all. We will lob in their neighbourhoods, we will tell them who lives in their house and what he does for a living … We will go to their local footy club. We will go to the local shopping centre. They will not be able to show their faces anywhere. Their kids will be ashamed of who their parents are when we expose all these ABCC inspectors.
He went on to say that 'they're in for a big surprise'.
Setka, the Leader of the Opposition's friend, benefactor and controller, says: 'They say there's two things you can't avoid; I say there's three. One of them is taxes, one of them is death and the other one is the construction unions, because, when we come after you, you'd better be careful.' That is the sponsor of the Labor Party. That is the sponsor of the Leader of the Opposition. That is his benefactor. That is his controller. What message does that send to business? What message does that send to Australians who want to invest and give someone a job? 'You have no rights unless you have the say-so of the CFMEU.' We are standing up to defy that— (Time expired)
Invictus Games
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel. Will the minister update the House on the progress being made for Australia to host the Invictus Games in 2018? How has the government provided support for our Defence members to participate in this international event?
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) (15:08): I thank the member for his question, and I know that he is a strong advocate of serving Defence personnel and our veterans. Today I had the great honour of announcing our team for the Invictus Games this year. They will travel to Toronto. I did that with the co-captains, Emma Kadziolka and Peter Rudland. It is incredibly moving that today is the seventh anniversary of the tragic Black Hawk accident where we lost three commandos. During the press conference we paused, and I know I speak for all members of the House in remembering those brave commandos who lost their lives seven years ago. It is also truly inspirational because three of the commandos who were involved in that accident seven years ago were announced as members of our Invictus Games team that will go to Toronto in October, including Peter Rudland, who is one of the co-captains.
We deal with issues in this House and we deal with trials and tribulations of life as they confront us, but to be there today with Emma and Peter, to hear about their stories and what they have been through and to see the way they are going about making sure that team will go to Toronto and represent us as a nation is—I know I speak for all members of this place—nothing short of what is great about this nation.
We also spoke about Australia hosting the Invictus Games next year in Sydney. Some of us were lucky enough to be there—and I know there were members from both sides of the House there—when Prince Harry came over to begin the countdown for the Invictus Games being hosted in Sydney. The Prime Minister was there and spoke eloquently following Prince Harry. He thanked him for his initiative in starting the Invictus Games and what it has led to in recognising those current Defence members and those veterans who will participate not only in Toronto but in Sydney.
The competition for these spots is ferocious and fierce. I was lucky enough to have a go at the wheelchair rugby two weeks ago, and I can tell you they do not mess around once they get into the sporting environment. Every single one of those members who will represent us this year will do our country proud. I know I speak for all members when I say that we wish them the very, very best of luck.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston on indulgence.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:11): On indulgence I would like to join with the minister to congratulate those who have made the team for Toronto. I met many of them a couple of weeks ago at Admiralty House, and they are a real inspiration to so many. Prince Harry spoke about the ferocious competition, but he also talked about the comradeship the team has together and the role that sport plays in the healing process. I certainly wish our team proud and I also wish those putting together the games in Sydney all the best. Both the team and the organisers have the support of this House, this parliament. We wish them all the best.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Schools
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:12): I will briefly add to an answer. The per-student funding from the Commonwealth for the Fregon Anangu School increases from $6,892 in 2017 to $7,307 in 2018, and by 2027 it will be $11,891 per student.
All honourable members are sending great good wishes to our team in the Invictus Games. 'Invictus' means unconquered, and we wish all of those veterans every good success as they demonstrate that they are, and always will be, unconquered. We wish them the best.
On that note, I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:13): 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.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Workplace Relations
The SPEAKER (15:14): I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The unfairness being inflicted on Australians in just 10 days time on July 1.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:14): Occasionally in Australian politics you get one day or one event which sums up everything that is wrong with a government and which makes the choice before the Australian people crystal clear. That day will come in 10 days time, on 1 July, when 700,000 Australian workers will get a pay cut. They will get a pay cut for committing the crime of leaving their families on a Sunday. They will get a pay cut for committing the crime of giving up a day which has been regarded as a special day for as long as there have been industrial awards and agreements in Australia. On that same day, it will be a good day for some people because, on that same day, Australians on a high income will get not a pay cut but a tax cut. That says it all about this government and its wrong priorities. Also on that day, because of this government's policy paralysis, wrong values and twisted competence, many of those families who will take a pay cut will also start paying more for their electricity—under this government, which said so much about energy prices in opposition and in government.
Let us go through these issues one by one. On 1 July, it will be unusual for Australian workers to have a pay cut. Australian workers, for years, have benefited from Australia's economic success. It has been agreed that that economic success should be shared. There have been times when the industrial commissions—which many members on this side of the House are known to have been involved in—have said: 'Look, we're going to negotiate. There's going to be some give and some take. We're going to get a more flexible arrangement, and some people might make a contribution and other people will be worse off.' This is not one of those times. This is just a straight cut to take-home wages. That does not require any imagination or any intelligence. This is just a cut. It is the first time in many, many decades that Australians will be facing a pay cut, at a time of record-low wages growth, when real wages are actually going backwards.
The Reserve Bank governor, not a man given to radical statements, just this week said that real wages growth in Australia was a crisis. The Treasurer says increasing real wages is the government's biggest economic challenge. Now, I always try to be reasonable and I always look for an opportunity to be bipartisan. I think: 'Yes, I agree with the Treasurer. This is one of the government's and the nation's greatest challenges.' But that is as far as I can go, because they have a different solution. The Treasurer's solution to real wages growth being too low is to cut wages further. I cannot agree with that. We on this side of the House cannot agree with that. The Treasurer and the government are letting this happen on their watch.
Let us have none of this nonsense that there is nothing that they can do and that it is all too hard because it has been agreed by an independent commission, and the government could not possibly intervene. Well, the parliament, in this term, are overturning a Federal Court decision on native title with which they do not agree. The government overturned a decision of the Remuneration Tribunal when it comes to truck drivers because they did not agree. But they sit by and watch this one be implemented. Why? Because it affects low-income earners, because it affects women and young people in particular, and because they agree with that. Just yesterday, every member of the government, with one exception, voted to cut wages for these workers. Every single one said, 'We will not intervene; we will do nothing.' The member for Gorton gave them the opportunity, moving amendments to say that we will not stand for this, and members opposite said, 'No; we will let it stand.' This is the approach taken by the government, and they know who is going to pay the price: Australian workers who can ill afford it.
We have a gender pay gap in Australia which has not moved for 20 years. For 20 years, we have made no improvement when it comes to female wages in Australia relative to male wages. Equal pay became the law of Australia in 1969 and yet, right across Australia, women are paid less than men. I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker, we as a parliament are about to let that situation get worse on our watch, thanks to this government, because the majority of workers in the hospitality sector and in retail are women, and women are more likely to work on a weekend as well. This government says, 'Yes, cut their wages.' We say no. We say they should not be cut. We say we should be improving female pay, not making it worse, and yet this government says it is okay. On the same day as this happens, workers across the country lose their pay.
Let me say in this debate as well: what this government is doing by delaying the legislation on worker exploitation in relation to 7-Eleven for 12 months is nothing short of a scandal. It is nothing short of a scandal that this government chooses to let this situation maintain for another 12 months. We have seen footage of workers being forced to go to ATMs to withdraw their wages and give them back to their employers, and this government is going to let that situation maintain for another 12 months? Shame on them—this is a scandal!
At the same time the government does have its priorities sorted, it is going to give a tax cut to high-income earners, on the very same day. Somebody earning $200,000 will get a $400 tax cut. Somebody earning half a million dollars will get $6,400, and somebody earning $1 million will get $16,400 a year in tax cuts. And the government says there is nothing they can do about that either. If only they had a responsible position where they could use to actually do something for the people of Australia—I don't know, like Prime Minister or Treasurer, maybe? They say there is nothing they can do because it is legislated that it be temporary. As we have said before, all those harsh cuts in the 2014 budget, which affected earners on low and middle incomes, were not temporary; they were permanent.
They did not say to Australia's low-income earners: 'Just help us out for a little while. You're just going to have to take a cut to the pension and wait longer for Newstart, just till we're back in surplus. Then we'll restore the situation.' The only measure in the 2014 budget which was temporary was the only one which impacted on high-income earners, yet this government lets that situation continue. We were told we would keep the deficit levy until we were in surplus. Last time I checked, the deficit is going to be 10 times bigger than what Joe Hockey told us in 2014 and yet this government says, 'No, we've got to get the tax cut through for millionaires and high-income earners.' And the government now says that we need a tax rise, but they are going to give that tax rise to every Australian who earns more than $21,000 a year, while giving a tax cut to those earning more than $180,000.
This is a government which will not act on negative gearing and will not act on capital gains and will continue to allow high-income earners to use, as a tax deduction, as much as they want for managing their tax affairs. They actually say, 'We'll let you use as much as you want to pay your fancy lawyers and your accountants, and you can get your income of over $1 million down to zero, and we think that's just fine.' Well, we do not think that. We think that should be fixed and reformed. We think that Australia's high-income earners can pay as much as they want to their lawyers and their accountants, but only $3,000 will be subsidised by every other taxpayer in Australia. That is our policy and one that they should implement as well.
On 1 July, Australian families will be paying more for their energy, and I just want to deal briefly with this, because it goes to the paralysis and hypocrisy of this government. The Prime Minister has been waxing lyrical about how he is taking tough action on gas exports and how it is going to put downward pressure on energy prices. Thank goodness for Malcolm Turnbull! Nobody else would have thought of a policy to deal with gas exports. Nobody else would have thought of one, apart from the Labor Party. I recall a press conference with myself and the member for Isaacs at Dandenong, at a factory, announcing a policy on gas exports during the last election. The member for Port Adelaide and I announced that policy, and the member for Isaacs joined me for the announcement. I also recall the reactions from members opposite, including our old friend, the now Minister for Energy and Environment, who said it was a 'sovereign risk for Australia', that it was unacceptable protectionism. It was an attack on the Australian economy. It would be an investment killer. Now he boasts, late to the party, that he has decided to deal with exports of gas.
This is just another example of how this side of House leads the policy debate in Australia; how this side of House, on every single issue, has identified the needs of Australia and has identified, more importantly, the right policy response. Every time members opposite have engaged in a scare campaign, in rhetoric and in slogans and every time they have gone the low road they have been caught out. And on 1 July this year, they will be caught out more than ever before, as the Australian people see, in a way which is crystal clear, that when it comes to the values for Australia, this government gets it wrong.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Minister for Small Business) (15:24): The shadow Treasurer talked about the Fair Work Commission established on 1 July 2009 under Labor, the commissioners appointed by Labor and the process that has led to the penalty rates decision that he now complains about, which was initiated by Labor. He talked about energy costs and yet he belongs to a party that wants to reintroduce a carbon tax, which will only drive power prices up. The shadow Treasurer is from the same party that demonises coal and yet is owned and absolutely beholden to the Greens.
Fairness is what today's matter of public importance debate is about. Do you know what is fair? That any Australian who needs it can now have access to the fully funded National Disability Insurance Scheme. Do you know what is fair? That country schoolkids in classrooms in my electorate and right across Australia, and certainly in regional Australia, get the needs based funding that they deserve. Do you know what is fair? Opening farmers and consumers throughout rural and regional Australia to jobs and opportunities through what Parkes Shire Council Mayor Ken Keith calls the iconic Inland Rail. There is $8.4 billion allocated in the budget going through your fine electorate of Parkes, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton. Do you know what is fair? Helping small business have a go to create jobs and opportunities for Australians and help grow our economy.
At the heart of the budget delivered by this government on 9 May was a very central theme—fairness. It is the fairness in delivering a budget that puts Australia back on track to balance so that our children and our children's children do not shoulder an unaffordable burden in the future. Yet Labor, in their unfair and short-sighted politicking, simply do not get it. They do not want to get it. They do not understand. This MPI debate brought on by the member for McMahon simply proves it.
This MPI talks about unfairness in 10 days time, but let me tell you about those who will actually pay more tax in 10 days time. Multinationals will pay more tax in 10 days time. They are the companies about which those opposite dithered and did nothing. If multinationals earn tax in Australia, thanks to the Liberals and the Nationals they will pay tax in Australia. As we moved to crack down on multinational tax avoidance, those opposite did the only thing that they know how to do—they stood in the way. There was such negativity and obstruction. They issued press releases. They pointed the finger. They shirked the blame. It is so typical of Labor. They voted against our laws that will make multinationals pay tax.
Another group will pay their fair share come 1 July too—major banks. It is another sorry story about the soapbox and the shadow cabinet. Whilst those opposite stand on their soapbox and lecture about the banks, we are asking them to pay their fair share. We are asking that they help restore our budget and make the banks accountable. The Treasurer announced a new banking executive accountability regime that will ensure that banks and their executives are held accountable when they fail to meet expectations.
The government will legislate for a one-stop shop to deal with all financial disputes, including superannuation disputes, substantially improving outcomes for individuals and businesses who have disputes with their banks or other financial institutions. That is only fair. In 10 days time Australia's small businesses will get the fairness and support that they deserve too. We will see on 1 July a simpler business activity statement for businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million, meaning small business owners can spend less time on paperwork and more time with family and friends. What could be better than that? From 1 July small businesses can opt into single-touch payroll, making it simpler to pay and report salary or wages, pay-as-you-go withholding and superannuation information.
July 1 is going to be a very good day. The $100 million Advanced Manufacturing Fund will start, which backs innovation, research, cooperatives and excellence in our universities and will help industry adjust to the wind-down of car manufacturing. From 1 July small businesses can keep using the $20,000 instant asset write-off program to purchase the new equipment they need. Do you know why? Because we extended it in the budget. When we back small businesses, jobs and wages grow. When we cut small business tax, small business can reinvest in itself and put on another casual. This is often someone's first job or an opportunity, indeed, for an older Australian. When we extended the instant asset write-off to more small businesses than ever before, we helped small business grow, pursue new ideas and create jobs. And what could be more important than that, Deputy Speaker? We back small business because it is fair to level the playing field. We back small business because it is fair that our best and our brightest should have a go. They are the risk-takers—small businesses are the risk-takers. They are in all our electorates—I know the member for Whitlam has his back turned and he is talking away as though he does not care, but they are in his electorate too.
But fairness goes further than just that. Fairness is returning the budget to balance. Fairness understands that when those opposite came to government—following the fine and responsible economic leadership of John Howard and the Liberals and Nationals—they squibbed it. They did. They squibbed the opportunity to reduce the pressure for today's children. It is unfair that, having inherited surpluses, Labor went about accumulating deficit upon deficit upon deficit—and I could say it six times, Deputy Speaker; it is sad but it is true—with total deficits of just under $240 billion in six years—that is, 16.9 per cent of gross domestic product. After inheriting Labor's baked-in spending and a structural deficit, the Liberals and Nationals government deficits have been $70 billion, or around 30 per cent, less. It was unfair that Labor threw away our surpluses on school halls and roofing insulation without the proper precautions and without the business case—so unfair. It was unfair that cheques were sent overseas, and to people who had actually passed away, causing even more grief to Australian families—all when Labor should have been building our economy. They had the perfect opportunity to do so. They squibbed it, and they wasted it. But we understand the fairness of getting the budget back to balance—because that is what Liberals and Nationals do. That is what we do. There is a side which does not squib it—it is this side, it is the Liberals and it is the Nationals. And we have a sensible and fair plan to get there, just like colleagues in the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals; like Gladys Berejiklian, the Premier, and her deputy, John Barilaro, whose budget yesterday delivered the services and the infrastructure that communities deserve, particularly country communities, whilst making responsible and fair decisions for the future.
Fairness is at the heart of the federal plan, too, while those opposite obstruct the very fairness of budget balance. They do it each and every day. As we approach savings measures which are fair and which mean those Australians who need support actually get it, those opposite stand in the way. They stand opposed. They oppose asking Australians to help us fully fund the NDIS through a modest increase in the Medicare levy—despite the shadow cabinet knowing in their hearts that it is a good idea. They play politics. In the modern Labor Party, politics trumps people at every hurdle. Even former Labor luminaries call out Labor's short-sightedness. They do. On the question of the fairness our budget delivers for Australians, former Labor minister Craig Emerson was clear when he said about Labor:
It should support the full increase in the Medicare levy, unconditionally back the bank levy and pass the school funding legislation …
Yet unfortunately, populism and politics stand in the way. Those opposite do not like what their former Labor frontbenchers say. Those opposite just stand in the way, for a political pointscoring exercise. Labor opposes removing payments to people which compensate them for a carbon tax which no longer exists. Let me tell you, Deputy Speaker, if they ever get hold of the Treasury benches again, that tax will be implemented. It will be reintroduced. It will push power prices up.
We know what happens when you get ideology standing the way of policy. We have seen how the Labor Premier, Jay Weatherill, is going in South Australia—small businesses, farmers and families have no guarantee that, when they flick the switch, the power is going to come on. Labor opposes getting the best deal possible for our students, delivering David Gonski's dream and funding schools according to their needs—just like Labor opposes the fairness of fully funding the NDIS. This comes as former leaders from the Australian Education Union want Labor to support it. In a letter to the PM and the opposition leader, a former president of the Australian Education Union, Dianne Foggo, said: 'It is on the principle of needs-based funding into the future that the Turnbull government's bills must be supported.' And Labor stands opposed. I cannot understand it. She continued: 'One of my proudest and most humbling honours has been to be made a life member of the AEU and to be a former federal president.' Labor should listen to her. They should support our sensible policies. They should get on track with the rest of the nation.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (15:34): July the 1st is shaping up as Australia's D-Day. It is shaping up as Australia's D-Day because for the first time in a very, very long time we will see wages go backwards for low-income earners who depend on those penalty rates and who depend on those extra shifts that they get on Saturdays and Sundays to increase their wages to supplement the family income to ensure that they pay their bills, get food on the table and do all the other things that we do naturally as families. This is the first time ever that someone's wage has been rolled backwards without a negotiation, without a discussion, without two people sitting at the negotiating table to negotiate, perhaps, different conditions of work in return for penalty rates or lower penalty rates.
It is quite natural for this government not to support the stopping of this taking place on 1 July, and I say so because these are the same people that were the architects of WorkChoices back in 2007. We remember those plans that they had in place to implement them—in fact, they did implement them—and how hurtful they were to the public. The cutting of penalty rates is part of that plan. It is just chipping away at bits and pieces of many, many workers' rights and workers' conditions that have been fought for over generations. Those conditions have been fought for by my parents, my grandparents, your parents, your grandparents and people in the history of Australia who have worked to better workers' rights continuously. This government is standing by on 1 July and allowing this to take place.
It is a national disgrace. It is a disgrace that we are attacking the lowest-paid workers, the lowest-paid people, in this country when, at the same time, we are looking at giving a $65 billion tax cut to the high end of town. As I said, it is a disgrace. The Prime Minister is willing to increase income tax as well for all pay earners earning over $21,000. Have a think. Who earns between $21,000 and $80,000 a year? It is, again, our cleaners, people who work part-time, people who work on assembly lines, people who have those lowest paid jobs and are struggling in our community to pay their bills, to put food on the table and to send their kids to school. They are the people that this government is attacking. They are the people that this government has forgotten about. They are the people that they do not care about, but they do care about the high end of town and giving a $65 billion tax cut to those people. That is their priority.
Why is it their priority? Because the leader, the Prime Minister, is of that ilk. He has come to this place as a former banker, someone that has represented the boardrooms of those banks for many, many years. They are the people that urged him on and put him here in this place. But he was a bit of a progressive, I suppose, before he became Prime Minister. We know that he was running the Republican movement. We know that he supported same-sex marriage. There was a whole range of things. He was considered a bit of a progressive.
There is an interesting legend which has very many similarities to the Prime Minister, and that is the legend of Dr Faust. I do not know if anyone has heard of him, but Dr Faust is the protagonist of a classic German legend. He was a very learned man and a scholar who was highly successful. Yet, he was very dissatisfied with his life. This led him to make a pact with the devil, exchanging his soul for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures. That is what we have here with the Prime Minister. Someone who had it all but decided to sell his soul to the right-wing conservative arm of his party and throw everything out the window for the godly pleasures of being Prime Minister.
He was willing to sell out hardworking Australians to pander to his rich mates. Even if there was ever any doubt on the government's values and priorities, and on this Prime Minister, then the changes that come into effect on 1 July should dispel that once and for all. The government is penalising low-income workers—vulnerable Australians—on so many fronts. And, as I said, at the same time it is giving a $65 billion tax cut to the top end. That is a tax cut for the top two to three per cent of income earners in Australia, while at the same time— (Time expired)
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (15:39): Here we are about lower tax; over there they are about higher tax. Nowhere is it more obvious than in relation to these small and medium sized business tax cuts that have recently gone through the parliament. Small and medium sized businesses with revenues of between $2 million and $50 million will receive substantial tax reductions under the legislation that has gone through the parliament that those opposite voted against. But they opposed those tax reductions so, presumably, if they get into government, they will unwind them. What does that actually mean? It means a $25.4 billion tax increase: those opposite propose for small and medium sized businesses in Australia a $25.4 billion tax increase.
They like to talk about multinationals and the big end of town, mustering as much menace as they can in that statement, but these are businesses of $2 million to $50 million—small businesses, medium sized businesses. There are about 130,000 of them that benefit through the government's policy and, if you take that $25 billion tax reduction over the decade, how much does that work out at on average for each of those small and medium sized businesses? On average, it is about $224,000. If those opposite are saying that they do not support the legislated changes for small and medium sized businesses with $2 million or more turnover, which have already passed through the parliament, it adds up to $25 billion in tax savings for those businesses. There are 113,000 of those businesses, so an average is $224,000 more tax for small and medium sized Australian businesses relative to the legislation that is actually law now because it is through the parliament. That is a massive contrast.
The other thing that those opposite want to do is increase the tax on investment in Australia by 50 per cent for everything. They want to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent for everything, and this is because of their so-called housing affordability policy designed, supposedly, to address the housing affordability issue in Sydney and Melbourne.
Mr Tim Wilson: Cash-grab policy!
Mr COLEMAN: But, as the member for Goldstein rightly interjects, it is a cash-grab policy, because how does increasing the tax by 50 per cent on someone who invests in a farm outside Mudgee address housing affordability in the major capital cities? How does increasing capital gains tax by 50 per cent on someone who invests in a cafe have anything to do with housing affordability or indeed somebody who invests in a factory? What about all those situations in Australia at the moment where factory workers get together and buy the business to keep it going? If they do that in the future under Labor, they will pay 50 per cent more tax. That is a policy that kills investment and kills jobs. It is an extremely bad idea.
They also want to have an extremely high marginal rate of tax for people who earn over $87,000 because they say, in relation to funding the NDIS, that people who are earning over $87,000 are rich, that they can afford to contribute to the funding of the NDIS and so they pay a hugely disproportionate burden.
At the $87,000 rate, your marginal rate of tax, including the Medicare levy, should be about 39 per cent. Under the policy of those opposite, as soon as you hit $87,000, you pay the Medicare levy of $400 plus. So what that means is: if you are earning $90,000, your effective rate of tax over $87,000 is actually 54 per cent. If you are earning $92,000, your effective rate of tax above $87,000 is 48 per cent; $95,000, 45 per cent; and $100,000, 43 per cent. That is creating a very substantial disincentive for those people who are not wealthy, certainly, in my electorate, where the median house price is well over a million dollars. Someone who is earning $87,000 is far from wealthy, but those opposite say: 'Let's tax them at an effectively higher marginal rate of tax than they would otherwise pay.'
They talk about the big end of town and millionaires and billionaires, but their definition of that is a small business that turns over $2 million—it probably makes a five per cent profit, so really it is making $100,000 a year—or somebody who earns over $87,000 a year, which in metropolitan Australia is by no means a large amount of money. They oppose sensible measures to crack down on multinational tax avoidance and have been very successful and have already raised over $2 million. Those opposite: they are about higher taxes. They do not understand what it takes to run an economy; this side does, and we have much stronger policies on tax.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (15:44): I rise to speak about this matter of public importance—the unfairness being inflicted on Australians in just 10 days time on 1 July. Is it fair that, in pockets of my community, around a third of households have a combined income of less than $600 per week? Is it fair that 16.6 per cent of young people in my community are looking for work? Is it fair that one in two students in my community have the opportunity to complete high school? Is it fair that, on 1 July, 15,000 workers on the Central Coast will get a pay cut of up to $77 per week?
Budgets are about priorities, and this government's budget is just not fair. At the heart of every government should be a sense of fairness, making sure that people and families most in need are helped and never left behind. This government abandoned any sense of fairness a long time ago. In 10 days time, on 1 July, it is going to get a lot worse for many Australians. Fairness should be at the heart of all government decisions. The Turnbull government is ideologically driven—determined to return favours to its supporters in the big end of town at the expense of those who can least afford it in regional Australia, like my community. On 1 July, the Turnbull government will deliver a $16,400 tax cut to millionaires and, the very next day, cut the penalty rates for 700,000 of Australia's lowest paid workers, resulting in a pay cut of $6,000 every year for half a million Australians working in the retail and hospitality industries. On top of this, the government intends to increase income tax for all PAYE taxpayers who earn over $21,000 per year. Is that fair?
The cut in penalty rates is a cruel blow to hardworking Australians. It comes at the same time as the Reserve Bank sounds the alarm bells on slow wages growth and the very real impact this will have on Australians' standard of living.
Ms Price: What about those Coles workers? Where was Labor then?
Ms McBRIDE: I will take your interjection about Coles workers. Retail workers in my community are worse off. They are worse off—up to $77 per week worse off. The cut in penalty rates is a cruel blow to hardworking Australians, and it comes at the same time as the Reserve Bank sounds the alarm bells on slow wages growth and the very real impact this will have on Australian standards of living. The government can no longer claim that this is the work of an independent judicial body. They had a chance to support Labor's legislation overriding this decision, and they did not. The Turnbull government made its position very clear by voting to support this massive cut to the wages of low paid Australians. To make matters worse, Australian families will be confronted by massive hikes in their electricity bills from 1 July, thanks to this government's flip-flop on energy policy.
But Mr Turnbull's attacks on fairness do not end there. While he constantly asks Australians to tighten their belts, he and Treasurer Scott Morrison have completely lost control of the country's finances. Gross debt will shortly reach three-quarters of a trillion dollars—that is three-quarters of a trillion dollars! And the projected budget deficit has risen on 10 occasions since the confected 'budget emergency' was first mooted. He will not address the exceedingly generous tax concessions which heavily favour wealthy Australians and is committed to a $65 billion tax cut for big business.
We may now have a real budget emergency, thanks to this government, but, rather than saving money by not giving tax cuts to millionaires and big business and not subsidising the private investment which is driving up house prices, the government continues along the road of unfairness by cruel cuts to school funding. The government is trying desperately to push through $22 billion in cuts to the nation's schools. I quote from the minister representing the Minister for Education:
The member for Dobell has 44 schools in her electorate, which miss out on an average of $7.1 million each under the coalition's program, so she must go to the people of Dobell and explain why they are better off.
They are shameless! This is not even sham fairness from this government.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (15:49): We have heard a lot about fairness. That is the key plank of the shadow Treasurer's MPI today—fairness. But what is fairness? Perhaps it is in the eye of the beholder. According to me, fairness is saying something and sticking to it; fairness is fully funding the programs we implement; and fairness is allowing people the freedom and security to live in relative peace and prosperity, to grow their wages, to build a home, to invest in the future and to send their kids to school, to a school that is properly funded. That is exactly what this government has done for Western Australia with respect to school funding.
We all know that the mining and construction boom has ended, and our state has certainly run aground and has had a few problems. We all understand that and we accept that. But it is not all doom and gloom. The drop in house prices means that young people now have a fighting chance to enter the housing market in regional Western Australia. But fairness means giving our Western Australian schools a proper level of federal government fund—a proper need-based model. Fairness means that, instead of those members opposite standing up like we have heard today, parroting and repeating the line of 'tax cuts for millionaires', they should do their job and do some research.
Mr Tim Wilson: That's a good impersonation. Do it again.
Ms PRICE: I said 'tax cuts for millionaires'. They should do their job and they would find out that the levy that they are talking about actually kicks in at $180,000. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, but when I say 'millionaire' that is not someone who earns $180,000. So let's get the facts straight before we start talking about such issues.
Fairness is not having a marginal tax rate of 49 per cent, which is what those opposite—and let's remember this—would like for us here in Australia. I am sorry, but I do not believe that a dollar for you is also a dollar for the nation. I do not believe in that. What incentive is there to work hard, to build a business, to take on extra responsibility at work or to take on risks in the marketplace for a business, if you are rewarded by theft of the highest order from your government? It is just not fair.
But let us go back to the school funding, because it is my favourite topic at the moment—just like those opposite, except my conversation is more grounded in fact rather than fairy-tale land. Of all the special deals that we have heard about that were cut under Labor, not one was going to benefit or currently benefits schools in my electorate of regional Western Australia. As it happens, Western Australia is right at the bottom of the league ladder in terms of public school funding in this country. This is despite clearly having some of the greatest need in the country. Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, like in your electorate of Parkes, I have some of the most disadvantaged Australian—students in particular—and I do not think Labor actually cares whether their needs are met, because Labor cares more about meeting the needs of inner city schools in Sydney and Melbourne rather than regional Western Australia.
But let us take a closer look at what those opposite have been up to lately. I really do not think we can believe one word that they say. Even today we saw the Manager of Opposition Business caught out by his own former employer—clearly no loyalty there—The Daily Telegraph, quoting the Manager of Opposition Business's strong support for 'stricter English speaking requirements'. He considered it so important that he actually wrote of his support for this in the very first column that he ever wrote for that publication. He also said that he supports every person entering Australia signing a declaration to respect our laws and way of life. But yesterday he decided that he did not like that position. He decided that that was a 'bizarre act of snobbery'. If you look up the word 'snobbery' you see that it means that you think that you are better than someone else.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Ms PRICE: I think everyone would agree that people who want to be citizens should be able to speak our language.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Griffith is warned!
Ms PRICE: I am sure those words will haunt the Manager of Opposition Business, because the only bizarre act of snobbery I can see is a man who believes that he can make public comment to the Australian people and then take the exact opposite position and believe he can get away with it.
There are a lot of things that are unfair, and we have seen a sort of collective amnesia fall over members opposite regarding what has gone on with Coles workers and the SDA. The union is in such a shambles that it has traded away penalty rates for those 15-year-olds. But we don't hear those opposite crying about that, saying how unfair it is. That is what we would really like to hear on this side. We would really like for Labor to care more about those young 15-year-olds—and to care less about backing their union mates who rip us off. (Time expired)
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (15:55): Earlier this week we saw something extraordinary—a recognition, at the highest levels of economic policymaking, of a truth that is currently being felt in households across Australia. Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe told the Crawford Australian Leadership summit that the lack of real wage growth in the Australian economy was 'a crisis'. And he is right. Australia has now experienced four years of declining wages growth under the Abbott-Turnbull government. Wages growth is flatlining at just 1.9 per cent per annum—the lowest on record. In real terms, wages have actually contracted—indeed, they have contracted the most since the recession of the 1990s. Living standards have stagnated and inequality is at a 75-year high.
Things have gotten so bad that even Senator Abetz has stopped warning about an imminent wages breakout. The Reserve Bank governor is not interested in this as a question of industrial fairness though. Things have gotten so bad that the absence of wage growth is now a serious economic challenge for the Australian economy. Indeed, he noted:
Households are gradually coming to grips with slower growth in their real incomes. Growth in wages is unusually low, average hours worked have declined and the nature of employment is changing ... Many households are also coming to grips with higher debt levels and, in our largest cities, high housing prices. We need to watch these issues carefully.
Wages growth is so weak that it is now acting as a choke on household spending—limiting the growth prospects of the Australian economy.
The RBA governor came to the conclusion that workers should ask for a raise. The RBA governor gets it, but the Prime Minister and the Treasurer remain completely out of touch. The Treasurer, this week—overturning decades of economic orthodoxy linking wages to productivity growth—suggested in response to questions about this economic crisis that the best way to respond to this crisis was to cut company tax because this would increase corporate profits and 'wage increases should follow the profits that companies are making'.
Let us pause just for a moment to reflect on a Treasurer who has become such a lost cause and a joke that nobody is even surprised at his latest fumbling of basic economic policy. It is barely noted. The Treasurer's transformation in his short period in office is he has evolved from a bullyboy Biff Tannen type, when he was on top, to a shouty but unpersuasive Brick Tamland type, to today's sad spectacle: the vaguely pathetic Ralph Wiggum, who we have seen in action this week. He is a joke. Even if you were to subscribe to the Treasurer's unique, corporate profit-driven view of the world, company profits were up 40 per cent last year while wages were only up by 0.9 per cent. Does that sound fair?
A government that cared about fairness would be trying to tackle this crisis. What is the Turnbull government's response? What do they say when they are asked what their plan is to deal with this crisis and give Australian households an income boost? More of the same! More of the same $65 billion tax cuts. It is not quite as good as that. If they were doing nothing, it would be fairer than what they were actually doing. Instead, they are actively making things worse, greasing the rails for the well off, who are already doing well, and adding yet more lead to the saddlebags of working Australians.
In 10 days time, on 1 July, we will see an increase in income tax for all PAYE earners earning over $21,000. Not all of them, actually. On the same day, we will see a $16,400 tax cut for millionaires and a tax cut for the top two to three per cent of income earners earning more than $180,000 a year. On the same day, quarterly power bills will go out, pricing in the policy uncertainty, the policy failure of the Turnbull government's ideological divisions on energy and climate policy, pricing in a refusal to act on the recommendations of the Finkel review to introduce a clean energy target—to bring down emissions, to bring down electricity prices to provide certainty of supply for Australian households.
We will see a continuing refusal to address tax concessions, skewed to the top end of town, like negative gearing and capital gains tax, prioritising those who are already doing well and prioritising the best off. Most shamefully of all, we will see a government continuing to refuse to intervene to stop a cut to the wages of Australia's lowest paid. This week the Reserve Bank governor said Australian workers should ask for a raise. And this week the Turnbull government will refuse to stand in the way of a cut to the wages of 700,000 of the most vulnerable workers in our economy. These are the people who need a wage rise the most. These are the people who are living from pay cheque to pay cheque. These are the people for whom every dollar that comes in goes back out to the Australian economy, driving the jobs and growth that those opposite so often claim.
What is the Turnbull government doing to attack this macro policy problem, the problem of a lack of consumer spending in our economy? What is the Turnbull government doing to address the moral problem that we confront with inequality at a 75-year high? Those who have— (Time expired)
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:00): Here we go again, trying to work with the nonsense being proposed by those opposite. They are a real puzzle. They know that what they say is on the permanent record, but they contradict themselves every day of the week. It seems every day they come in here with a different position to what they said maybe just a few years ago or even a few months ago. It absolutely beggars belief. We are doing our best to work with them—we are; they have, after all, been elected to their posts—but it is so very hard when they cannot make up their minds.
The member for Lilley, who has been off this week, so badly wanted company tax cuts. He said he would fight tooth and nail to get it through when he was Treasurer, but now he does not. He says it is trickle-down economics and he is like the godfather amongst his base. His mate the member for McMahon said:
It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax …
Well, not anymore. He is so out of touch, or he contradicts himself so often, that he just cannot bear to say that anymore. On the Fair Work Commission, the Leader of the Opposition was clear. He said to support the decision of the independent umpire. That is what he said—isn't that right, the member for Banks?
Mr Coleman: Absolutely.
Mr HOWARTH: Well, that was until the independent umpire actually made a decision. When they made a decision, you did not like it. That is the Leader of the Opposition. The previous Labor government said they were committed to educational outcomes. 'We are committed to educational outcomes.' What happened to that stance? It is a Gonski. The NDIS—they were committed to funding it. That is gone as well. Every single member opposite says it is a tax increase—that we are applying a tax increase by wanting to properly fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They came in here, the member for Griffith—and she has gone now—and those opposite, saying, 'Multinational tax avoidance is a big issue.' I cannot blame the member for Lindsay, she was not here, but, before the last election, they voted against it. Every single one of them over on that side of the House voted against it. That is what they did. I could stand here all day and bang on. They have done enough backflips to earn a spot on the Australian gymnastics team—heaven forbid.
Now they are going to have a crack at us for the way we are managing our way out of their deficits, which are the result of poor economic management and a decade of reckless spending. That is the legacy of recent Labor governments. It is shameful. How do they want us to tidy up their mess? The public, the people in our seats, want us to work together. We are not even at 12 months since the last election. They want us to work together, but those opposite are too busy playing politics. They cannot conceive a way to progress the nation other than putting their hand in the pocket of hardworking Australians. You have to hand it to the member for McMahon. 'Millionaires are getting a tax cut,' he says in here. But what the member for McMahon fails to mention is that someone earning $1 million in this country, even with no deficit levy—which is currently in place and comes off in a couple of days—will pay $443,000 in tax. That is what they pay. Wake up, you guys opposite.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
Mr HOWARTH: 'Fancy accountants,' says the member for Newcastle. Okay, let us give them a $50,000 tax deduction because they are negatively geared. On $950,000 they pay $419,500 in tax, and these guys want to up it. They want to keep it up permanently. They want to destroy any hope that Australians have to make a better life for themselves. They want to keep them down. They want to feed them. They want to hand over the cash and keep them down. If you are an Australian and you want to be a school principal, you have no hope with this mob; they want to keep you down. If you are a young woman and you want to be a psychologist and earn $235,000 a year, they want to take your money. That is what they want to do. And the members for Hindmarsh and Dobell and Gellibrand, every single one of them, do not want to properly fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I will tell you what: if people earned $25,000 a year, they would be happy, in most cases, to pay $125 to properly fund it. Wake up! You are out of touch.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (16:05): 'Without discussion or negotiation': they were the words of the member for Hindmarsh when discussing the government's cuts to penalty rates. A great unfairness will be inflicted on my electorate of Melbourne Ports in 10 days time, on 1 July, as it will be on the people of Australia. According to the Bureau of Statistics, there are more than 13,000 workers in my electorate who are going to be hurt by the Turnbull government's attack on penalty rates. The 2011 census data shows that Melbourne Ports is amongst the 10 electorates nationally that are most affected by these cuts to penalty rates. According to the 2011 census, there were 7,128 people in Melbourne Ports working in the retail sector and 5,606 working in the hospitality industry. Over half of the workers in those sectors are aged 35 years or younger. They are the people struggling to save for their first home, a goal that is becoming beyond the reach for many as these unfair measures are placed like hurdles before them. Only Labor, with its aim of eliminating negative gearing, gives them any hope of getting into the housing market.
Across the country, approximately 700,000 of the lowest paid workers will have their pay cut, while the government gives a $65 billion tax cut to major business. Talk of phasing in the cuts to penalty rates over four years suggests that low-paid workers will not feel the pinch if they become poorer more slowly, when in fact it will only give them time to consider how to make the cuts to their own health care, the education of their children or their spending at local businesses. As Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong and Leader of the Opposition, said, 'This is an appalling decision, and it comes at a time when wages are falling in real terms.'
The Treasurer, Scott Morrison, tells us that wages will go up when companies grow after their tax cut. He is hoping for the trickle-down effect. As Sally McManus, the Secretary of the ACTU, pointed out last night, the trouble with that is that last year company profits went up by 40 per cent. In the real world, real workers are facing unfair cuts to their take-home pay, and growth has flatlined at 1.9 per cent. When Labor was last in office, it was over three per cent. So we are being promised 'pie in the sky when you die'. These big company tax cuts will allegedly lead to people getting salary increases but, while profits have increased over the last few years of the Liberal government, that has not happened.
It is of absolutely no comfort to those facing pay cuts in my electorate that others will be gifted a $16,400 tax cut on the same day as retail workers are being punished with a cut of $6,000 per year via cuts to their penalty rates. It is not only victims of penalty rate cuts that this government is treating unfairly. Small businesses will have major concerns about the knock-on effects of the 11,800 locals in my electorate who have less money to spend. As the member for Gellibrand pointed out, as of 1 July every taxpayer earning from $21,000 to $180,000 will have their PAYE tax increased. My constituents are angry that no other major political party made a submission to the Fair Work Commission arguing for penalty rates—including the Greens political party, despite their rhetoric. Labor remains the only party committed to protecting penalty rates and low-income workers.
The Turnbull government have failed to explain why retail or hospitality work on Sunday is somehow less valuable than their own or anyone else's work. As the member for Dobell said, low-paid workers, in 10 days time, will suffer a $77 per week cut to their pay. That is completely unjustified for people at the lowest end of the income scale in Australia, who we should be looking after. The McKell Institute has released a report highlighting that 55 per cent of those affected by these penalty rate cuts are female. This is yet another way in which the cruel and unnecessary cuts are unfair. The McKell Institute also reports that changes will impact on future EBA negotiations because they signal an economy-wide devaluation of Sunday penalty rates and may serve to undermine future collective bargaining. So we have a $22 billion cut to education; Australia has an all-time high rate of under-employment and casualisation; we have a situation where it is harder for young people to get into the housing market; and on top of that we have got this unfair and unnecessary cut to penalty rates. For the average Australian, this government is bad news.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:10): The point of this motion today, according to the opposition, is to talk about unfairness in the future. Let us take on good faith what they are actually trying to make the argument for, but I think we should also take the opportunity to talk about unfairness today. I want to use the opportunity, firstly, to condemn the remarks of Pauline Hanson in the Senate, and her suggestion that it is in some way appropriate to go out there and argue that children with a disability should be separated out from the rest of the community and from other students in schools. I think that is absolutely unfair. I think it is an absolutely outrageous proposition. I am sure all members, regardless of differences of opinion on the motion, will agree with that.
Deputy Speaker, I have two pugs. One of the great things about the electorate of Goldstein is that it is full of lots of families who have dogs. Ella and Louis are my pugs and often, when I have the opportunity to be at home, we go over to the dog park across the road. But invariably, as you know Deputy Speaker, dogs do one thing—that is, they go around, they sniff around, and they often find things that they probably should not be sniffing—
Mr Zimmerman interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: I will not repeat what the member for North Sydney just said. But dogs sniff around, and they often find things that are a bit foul. And what is foul today—and even Louis or Ella could sniff it today—is the motion being put forward by the opposition. The opposition is putting forward a motion to grandstand—for their cheap political points—at the expense of Australians. My electorate is full of hardworking Australians, industrious people, good people, who look for a sense of justice in this world. But they know that justice comes with responsibility, with people standing up and taking care of their affairs, and with making sure we do everything we can to encourage people to rise and succeed. To go to some of the points that have been raised already by other members: it is quite clear that we in this government are squarely focused on justice and on fairness by making sure that we cut taxes for hardworking Australians. These are hardworking Australians who have actually gone out, earned a quid, and put their labour and their energy on the line at any time to support themselves and their families. And we should be encouraging them to do that. But it is not just people who are salary-earners, although they are very important; it is also the people in business. The people in business who have taken risks, who have had a tough time. They had a tough time for many years—firstly they had to survive the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era where, increasingly, they were taxed by the government. That government did not actually support them at the time to build their opportunities with their businesses. That government actually used it as an opportunity to tax them, and to tax them more, and to target those people in business who wanted to do better for the rest of the community. This government is focused on—and quite rightly so—making sure that everybody in this country meets their responsibilities. I think where the government should be applauded particularly is focusing on the challenges around multinational taxation. The efforts that this government has gone to to tackle multinational tax avoidance are very real. We have seen numbers in the billions being put forward—about how much multinationals have not been contributing, and now are—because we are making sure that there is a diverted profits tax, to make sure that multinationals cannot get away with tax avoidance. Similarly, we are implementing the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law and increasing the resources necessary for the Australian Taxation Office to make sure that they crack down on multinationals who do not do the right thing. That is the thing: we are a country where everybody has to have freedom, justice and responsibility, and everybody has to shoulder that responsibility together. It is only when we do that that we can fund the social dividend that we all believe in, which actually delivers a sense of justice in society. To sit here each question time while those opposite talk about the National Disability Insurance Scheme even though they did not fund it—and we now are—is just extraordinary.
When it comes down to it, there are millions of Australians who need support and assistance from the government for legitimate reasons. The least that the opposition could do is be honest with the public in explaining to them the consequences of their bad policy. They go out there and shed their crocodile tears when it suits them, but will not even honour the commitment that they have made in previous elections. One of the members before raised a narrative, which I thought was a very good opportunity and it inspired me. When it comes down to it, Labor is never going to give you up, they are going to let you down, they are going to run around and desert you, they will make you cry, their taxes will never say goodbye, they will just lie and hurt you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The discussion has concluded.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Report
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:15): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report entitled Third interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 election: AEC modernisation.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr GILES: by leave—This third interim report of the joint standing committee is an uncontroversial report, but it is important. All of us are mindful of the context within which elections are taking place across all developed and democratic countries with, obviously, reports of interference in that election in the US and, indeed, attempted interference in the French election as well. These questions of integrity in the conduct of elections go to the heart of confidence in our democracy.
In this light, I want to touch very briefly on the consensus recommendations that have emerged from the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters looking at some modernisation and assurance matters going to the conduct of elections in Australia. There are five recommendations that the committee are putting before the parliament and to the government. First, there is a series of amendments to the act, all of which come at the recommendation of the Australian Electoral Commission and which proceed with the unanimous support of the committee after having the opportunity to consider these proposals and ask questions of the commission and, indeed, the commissioner. They are, effectively, tidying up provisions, but they are important tidying up provisions in light of emerging technology and other changes in the practise of elections.
Consistent with this, the second recommendation asks the recommendation to consider some additional funding. This goes to some very significant additional expectations that are falling upon the AEC and its staff and is a matter that deserves some wider consideration in this place. I look forward to hearing from the government when it responds to this interim report. The third recommendation goes to some operational considerations that the AEC might have regard to. A particular issue of concern to many members of the committee and, indeed, to me, goes to the training of staff, recognising the unusual nature of the staffing profile of the Australian Electoral Commission, which obviously, has to dramatically increase its staffing profile at election time and to the challenges that poses, particularly in a nation like Australia that is so geographically diverse as well as diverse in many other respects.
The fourth recommendation goes to the very important question of roll assurance, and we have recommended greater recourse to certified electronic rolls at polling booths to provide greater assurance in this regard. The last recommendation—I started off with the context of democratic assurance—critically requests that progress in these recommendations be reported back regularly to the joint standing committee so that this parliament as a whole can continue to monitor the extent to which our elections are being managed in a manner consistent with the needs of our modern democracy.
I am very pleased to present this report to the House and, in doing so, I thank the chair of the committee, Senator Reynolds, all my colleagues on the committee and extend my particular appreciation to the secretariat and those officers of the AEC who have assisted us, in particular, the secondee, who has been of enormous assistance to all committee members.
BILLS
Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016
Explanatory Memorandum
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:19): Today during the debate on amendments to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016, the minister inadvertently failed to table the supplementary explanatory memorandum. It would be appreciated if we could present the document with this formal statement: I present the supplementary EM in relation to the government amendments to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill, which were agreed to by the House earlier today, for the information of members.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) 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 words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that people with disability experience much higher rates of violence than the rest of the community, and in many cases, this violence occurs in places where they are meant to be receiving support;
(2) notes that children with disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than other children;
(3) condemns the Government's decision to reject a Royal Commission into Violence and Abuse against People with disability;
(4) notes that, contrary to the Government's claims, NDIS Quality and Safeguards will not negate the need for a Royal Commission into abuse of people with disability; and
(5) calls on the Turnbull Government to establish a Royal Commission so that people with disability, their families and carers can tell their stories to the highest level of judicial inquiry and seek justice".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) (16:20): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. So the question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:20): Prior to question time, I was informing the House about what a huge undertaking the NDIS is and how fully committed the government is to ensure its rollout—but not just its rollout; its properly funded rollout. The implementation of the NDIS is not just going to provide world-leading opportunities for the disabled to be able to gain various forms of assistance but it is also going to be a great boon for small businesses and small service providers.
As at March this year, there are 6,814 registered service providers that will be providing these services—and that number will clearly grow as the rollout continues. There will be 100,000 people who will be involved and be capable of receiving NDIS services who have never received disability services before. That is a fantastic outcome. In Queensland alone, there will be a necessary increase in the number of workers in the disability sector, from approximately 16,550 full-time equivalent positions to 35,950 by full rollout. That is nearly 40,000 people just in Queensland who will be directly employed as a result of the implementation of the NDIS.
Apart from having personal experience in this sector, I am also privileged to serve in this parliament on the NDIS committee. On that committee I have seen firsthand just how challenging the NDIS rollout has been and how much more it could become. That is why the coalition government is undertaking a considered approach to policymaking around the NDIS. To date, the Turnbull government has reached agreements for the full rollout of the NDIS with all states and territories. In Western Australia, we listened, and the federal government extended trials for a further year before coming to a final agreement with that state. The government's chairing of the COAG Disability Reform Council saw it endorse the Specialist Disability Accommodation Pricing and Payments Framework, an integrated market sector and workforce strategy with information linkages, a capacity-building policy framework and a rural and remote service delivery strategy.
Coming from a regional part of Queensland, I can inform the House that, as long as I am involved in the NDIS committee, I will always work hard to ensure that people in regional areas living with a disability have the best possible access to disability services and, as much as we can, match those services to those received in the city. When people live in the bush it can be very difficult to get the same sorts of services, but it is a top priority for me to ensure that, as best we can, those who choose to live in the bush or in the regions or even in remote Australia have access to the sorts of services that we who live in the cities take for granted.
The government is carefully considering the Productivity Commission's position paper on NDIS costs. The issue of costs is also a very important issue for the rollout of the NDIS. The contrast between the government's position on the NDIS and Labor's position in the past could not be clearer. Labor dived into trials of the NDIS a year earlier than the Productivity Commission recommended so that they could have it as part of their election campaign. Labor signed the federal government up to one-sided agreements which heavily disadvantaged the Commonwealth. In pursuit of a favourable headline, Labor signed agreements that took 100 per cent of the financial risk with little or no control over the levers to manage that risk. In the first quarter of operation under Labor, the average cost of an NDIS package blew out by an average of 30 per cent.
The biggest contrast, however, between the coalition and Labor on the NDIS is on funding. In total, Labor left a funding black hole of $50 billion over the coming decade for the funding of the NDIS, and shame on them. The coalition government took the difficult decisions needed to save the NDIS from Labor's funding black hole. It created the NDIS Savings Fund Special Account, which saw savings from other portfolios and other projects. The social services minister identified that this was an important opportunity for the NDIS and that any savings, any opportunities, from government projects would be quarantined into this special project account, which would go part of the way to funding the NDIS into the future, to try and make up this $50 billion black hole that was left to us. The government committed $1.3 billion to the fund from closing carbon tax compensation for new welfare recipients and another $62.1 million from additional reviews of disability support pension recipients. We tried to add a further $3 billion from the omnibus savings and childcare reform bill, though Labor did all they could to undermine all these measures. Labor would not accept the savings measures necessary, so we have to now take the politically tough decision to propose a 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare levy for all Australians in two years time. Reasonable members opposite know that this is the right thing to do. They know that the NDIS, properly funded, is a vital strategy for Australians.
In Australia, we look after our mates. We acknowledge that people who are living with a disability deserve to live in dignity. A sensible approach for the government to plug that $50 billion black hole, because of Labor's obstructionist approach to these things, is by introducing that 0.5 per cent Medicare levy. Many of those opposite, I know, secretly support this. But there is one person who does not, and that is the Leader of the Opposition. It is an absolute disgrace that he is trying to prevent proper funding for those living with a disability. He should hang his head in shame. Those more reasonable members opposite should pull him aside and give him a jolly good stern talking-to, because Australians look after their mates—we look after our mates who are in their most vulnerable state—and this is Labor's opportunity to do the right thing.
The bill before the House is another example of this responsible policymaking of the government. Schedule 1 of the bill establishes an NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission in line with the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs report into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional and residential settings. The bill was carefully considered and developed in consultation with states and territories, providers, people living with disabilities and their families and carers. It creates an independent regulator with the necessary power to register providers, handle complaints, analyse reportable incident notifications, manage the standards which service providers work under and enforce a code of conduct for NDIS providers and workers. The measures are properly funded, like all coalition policies, with $209 million over four years. It will provide a single point of contact for all jurisdictions, maximising efficiency and making the process as easy for consumers and providers as possible. It has been brought forward early so it is in place in good time for the full rollout.
Schedule 2 makes some necessary amendments to the objects and principles of the act, especially relating to carers. It improves some definitions and repairs some technical flaws. Again, this follows careful consultation with COAG and following the advice of an independent Ernst & Young report. In my time on the NDIS committee inquiry as it relates to mental health, we received evidence and submissions regarding possible issues with definitions in the act and the role of mental health carers. Schedule 2 of this bill is a response to previous feedback of this kind in other areas of disability care and shows the government's positive engagement with these processes. The bill is another example of timely, responsible forward planning and consultative policymaking from the Turnbull government, and I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:32): It is always jolly good to take a lecture from the member for Fisher, whom I also have the pleasure—or displeasure sometimes—of sitting with on the NDIS committee. And, as the member for Fisher, and respectfully his awareness with his own care of his daughter who has a disability, like me, he would have concerns around the safeguards for his own child, so perhaps he could get into his own Prime Minister and give him a jolly good talking to when it comes to dignity for people with a disability, which he mentioned during his speech.
I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill before us. This is a very important piece of legislation, and Labor supports the development of a strong quality and safeguards framework for the NDIS scheme. A robust, quality and safeguarding framework is important to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm which arises from poor quality or unsafe support services under the NDIS. This framework is vital to the success of the NDIS.
The NDIS was, of course, created by Labor in 2013—not the Liberals; it was Labor who created it and fully funded it, and I can say it is one of the reasons that I am a member of the Labor Party and it is one of the reasons that I am the member for Lindsay. I immensely proud of the work that Julia Gillard, Jenny Macklin and Bill Shorten did to bring it to fruition.
I have a son with a disability—that is well known. When the campaign for the National Disability Insurance Scheme began, I immediately knew from my experience with my son that I needed to support this to ensure that kids like mine, mums like me and families like ours were able to access something that can and will change lives forever. I thank those people on my side who worked tirelessly to ensure that this was a national priority, and shame on the government for coming in here day after day after day accusing our government and our side of this House that we do not support it.
The NDIS is a great starting point. It will help serve the day-to-day needs of people living with a disability, raising their participation rates in open employment and ensuring that they can make a significant contribution to their communities. Before arriving here, I worked for the disability access committee serving Penrith City Council. Our committee advocated for improved accessibility within the local community, advocating for public bathrooms to be accessible for those who need it and changing tables catering to those families with older children and adults—basic necessities requiring immediate action. For those who rely on changing facilities like these, the choice currently is between a public toilet floor or leaving the venue altogether and heading home. Neither of those is acceptable. It undermines the quality of life for those with a disability and their carers, and provides zero dignity whatsoever.
The NDIS represents a dynamic shift from the services delivered under largely block-funded contractual relationships between providers, the Commonwealth, and state and territory governments to one where people with a disability are purchasers and consumers of services from a diverse market under the NDIS. This bill is an acknowledgment of the existing governance arrangements and will not be adequate by the time the NDIS reaches its full rollout in 2019-2020, although the current arrangements remain in place during the transition years.
This bill establishes an independent national commission to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm arising from poor-quality or unsafe services under the NDIS, but that is only 10 per cent. This bill's explanatory memorandum states that the primary focus of the commission will be regulating NDIS providers to ensure that NDIS participants receive the standard of the service that they deserve.
However, I would like to address the Turnbull government's decision to rule out establishing a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with a disability. It is deeply, deeply disappointing, and it is a shame that the member for Fisher has left the chamber, because only a royal commission has the weight, authority and investigative powers to examine the horrific accounts of violence and abuse against people with a disability that have already occurred.
People with a disability suffer higher rates of violence than the rest of the community. Ninety per cent of women with an intellectual disability have been sexually assaulted—90 per cent; that is absolutely outrageous, and everybody in here should be absolutely outraged. Children with a disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than any other children.
So will this Prime Minister support the establishment of a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with a disability, because I think that is the community standard? He already knows these appalling figures, as do we all, but both the Prime Minister and Minister Porter have failed to support the calls to set up a royal commission. The disability sector is clearly calling on the Turnbull government to establish a royal commission into violence and abuse of people with a disability.
I take the opportunity to acknowledge the advocacy of the Disabled People's Organisations of Australia, VALID, AFDO and other community organisations that have called for this royal commission. The Prime Minister and Minister Porter should start listening to the concerns of people with a disability, their families and carers rather than come in here and accuse us on this side of the House of not supporting it; listening and not lecturing us.
These harrowing accounts of abuse are sickening and are absolutely unacceptable. The voices of people with a disability, who have been abused, must be heard and justice must be delivered. I notice now the interjections have stopped and heads over on the other side are hanging low in shame. We simply cannot let this abuse be swept under the carpet.
The Turnbull government's claim that the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework is sufficient to prevent further abuse of people with a disability is absolutely inadequate. It only covers 10 per cent of people with a disability and does not take into consideration those people who have already suffered as a result. Therese Sands of Disabled People's Organisations of Australia has said of the NDIS Quality Safeguarding Framework:
It would also address the scale of violence and abuse against people with disability, its many forms and the broad range of services and settings where it occurs.
Labor will continue to call on the Turnbull government to begin the work to establish a royal commission immediately. If they fail to do so, a Shorten Labor government will get this done, because we are action over here, not all talk. We understand how important this is.
The scale and severity of abuse against people with a disability and institutional care was outlined by an ABC TV Four Corners program in 2014.
Ms Banks interjecting—
Ms HUSAR: I do make everything personal, the member for Chisholm—thank you for your interjection; I will take it. It is called emotion. It is called lived experience, and I can actually—it became a catalyst. The program on ABC TV Four Corners became a catalyst for a Senate inquiry in 2015, which made 30 recommendations.
Mr Sukkar: We're funding it, unlike you!
Ms HUSAR: I take the interjection again and note this government's lack of action on anything to do with this, which appeared in 2015, including establishment of a royal commission. It took the Turnbull government 16 long months—including the member at the table, who is continuing to interject. It took you 16 months to do anything, to even make a response. What an embarrassing joke to the most vulnerable people in our community. This government rejected a royal commission and accepted only one of the Senate inquiry's 30 recommendations—just one. In March this year, Four Corners again revealed further cases of sexual and physical abuse being inflicted on people with a disability. Thank God for the ABC.
It is outrageous that perpetrators have not been prosecuted and, worse, may still be working in the disability sector. According to the Department of Social Services' own national abuse and neglect hotline, a total of 891 cases were cited between July 2012 and December 2014, with systemic abuse at 23 per cent, physical abuse at 16 per cent, psychological abuse also at 16 per cent, and neglect at 15 per cent being the highest of the reported incidents. The cases of violence and abuse that we know about are just the tip of the iceberg. Disabled People's Organisations Australia say that people with a disability experience far higher rates of violence than anybody else in the community. As I noted, they estimate that 90 per cent of women with an intellectual disability have been sexually assaulted in their lives, with 60 per cent of these people falling victim to abuse before the age of 18. Tragically, people with a disability are often treated as unreliable witnesses and, as in the cases we have outlined, perpetrators have not been charged and continue to work with vulnerable people. I am proud of my lived experience with my son with a disability, but I would not be proud to have these things perpetrated against him. The continued abuse of Australians with a disability by people who are meant to care for them demands nothing less than a royal commission. Only a royal commission has the weight, authority and investigative powers to examine these horrific accounts of abuse and violence against people with a disability.
Disability organisations have been pushing for a national inquiry. People who live in institutions and residential settings are particularly susceptible to violence and assaults from staff and other residents. The violence is very difficult to detect, investigate and prosecute. Imagine being disabled and being in the hands of your rapist day after day. I want to repeat that proposition to the chamber: just imagine what it must be like to be in the hands of your rapist day after day. Clearly, there are significant structural flaws in the systems designed to protect vulnerable people from predators—the failure of our legal systems to seek justice for victims and the absolute failure of governments to ensure the appropriate safeguards are in place. This is not the fault of one person, organisation or government.
Ms Banks interjecting—
Ms HUSAR: These failings reflect on us all, including you, member for Chisholm. We cannot erase the pain and suffering that so many have already experienced. However, a royal commission will at least give people with a disability, their families, like me, and carers, like the member for Fisher, the opportunity to be able to tell their stories and seek justice. They deserve a royal commission and no less and we absolutely owe it to them. I call on the Prime Minister to do the right thing: give vulnerable people who have suffered abuse a voice. Once and for all, give them justice.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:43): As speakers in this place have said, the proposal that is before us, introducing a quality and safeguarding framework, is necessary. Like many on my side, I am disappointed that it has taken the government so long to bring this in. We have the NDIS rolling out as we speak. In my part of the world, we hit the go button on the NDIS back in May and, like other parts of the world, it has not been without its problems. What is disappointing is that the government knew that, when you go from a patchwork of government not-for-profit services being delivered by different agencies and different organisations to a market based system without quality and safeguarding frameworks in place, it is open to exploitation and abuse. Just as in other sectors when we have gone from predominantly public delivery, not-for-profit delivery or community delivery to one based upon a market system, we have seen exploitation and abuse. My fear is that the same could happen under the NDIS model if we do not get the framework, the quality and the safeguards right.
I welcome what the government has put forward but echo the comments that have been made by people on this side of the House that we want to look at the legislation carefully to make sure that it is a genuine safeguard and that it does ensure quality. We want to look at the impact that it is having on delivery of services. We want to make sure that if somebody does the wrong thing that they are out, that they cannot phoenix and set themselves up as another provider. We want to make sure that there are safeguards in place for training, quality training, to ensure that we have the highest skills possible for people working in the NDIS space. We want to know the impact on staff. We want to know the impact on jobs. We want to ensure that the quality and safeguards are there to protect some of the most vulnerable in our community.
We want to refer the bill to the Senate for an inquiry to allow full consideration and scrutiny. We want to work with the government to get this right. We want to make sure that it is right because for us this is about the people in our community. This is about the most vulnerable. This is about their families. It is also about the people who work in the sector. There are a number of concerns that have been raised and these have been played in the media. In my part of the world, just before we rolled out the NDIS we had one very popular organisation go into voluntary administration and then close down: Radius Disability Enterprises. There was a lot of heartbreak and a lot of tears when this happened, not just for the staff directly employed; also for their supported employees and many involved in their day programs. They delivered services, support and advocacy for people with a disability in our community for many decades. One of the reasons they gave for going into voluntary administration was that under NDIS it would have made it that much harder for them. This is the problem when we introduce market-driven systems without appropriate safeguards and protections in place.
We know that people with a disability experience higher levels of violence than the rest of the community. The statistics have been outlined by Labor during this debate. Ninety per cent of women with an intellectual disability have been sexually assaulted in their lives; sixty per cent before the age of 18. Children with a disability are three times more likely to experience abuse than other children. Tragically, however, people with a disability are often treated as unreliable witnesses and are not permitted by the law to provide testimony at all. It is for these reason that Labor are saying that we cannot just introduce a Quality and Safeguards Commission; we must also have a royal commission into what is going on.
We want to be able to look at what has happened in the past, so we can get justice for people who have been victims of abuse. We want to be able to work out what to do where all three levels of government intersect. We want to be able to work out what to do in relation to the term 'unreliable witness' to ensure that people get their day in court and can be heard. We want to be able to look at people's situations beyond those covered by the NDIS. As has been highlighted, only 10 per cent of people with a disability are actually NDIS participants. What about the other 90 per cent? We want to be able to look at schools. That is something that the government has not looked at yet. We have seen that where schools have not been resourced properly, there has been some shocking treatment of children with a disability. There have been cases of children being locked in cages, which is wrong and should be condemned. These are the kinds of things that we can look at and have thoroughly investigated with a royal commission, where recommendations can be implemented at the local, state and federal level.
We also know from reports that, unfortunately, abuse occurs in the workplace, whether it involves a supported employee or a directly employed employee. People take advantage of people with a disability because they believe that they will not be able to testify to their own abuse. The abuse of people with disability is shocking and alarming, and it is something that all of us do stand united to condemn. However, the action that we take to address it is different.
That is why Labor is calling for royal commission which can compel witnesses, evidence and testimony where other forms of inquiry cannot. It can make recommendations for local, state and federal governments to introduce to ensure that we end the level of abuse occurring for people with a disability. This is not what this bill does. This bill talks about a Quality and Safeguards Commission for the NDIS program, but it does not talk about ending abuse. The Prime Minister and the government say, 'We do not have to have a royal commission because we are introducing the Quality and Safeguards Commission.' The two are related, but they are also very different because one talks about the systematic ongoing abuse of people with a disability, and the other talks about how to manage the NDIS system.
As I said earlier in my remarks, the NDIS is basically a market-based system. It allows the individual with a disability and a disability package to choose the services and the supports they would like. However, as I said, as it starts to roll out, the experience of NDIS within our communities is quite different. Someone who might have a physical disability might be quite supportive of the system. They have been able to get the fit-outs they need in their homes, able to purchase their own car with specialist equipment so they can drive. It is wonderful for these people to finally have management and control so they can fully participate in life and in our community. However, for people with an intellectual disability, for people with autism or people who have more complex disability issues—sometimes it is physical and intellectual—the experience with NDIS has not been the same.
My office now has somebody working on this full-time to support people in their advocacy with our local NDIA office to ensure they get a fair package and their package is being spent in their best interests. We know from the rollout of the Living Longer Living Better and the My Aged Care packages that, if you do not have proper safeguards in place, you do get situations where people may lose 80 per cent of their package in administration fees—and that is just not on. We have situations as well where the workforce is , made to be casual because it is a demand-driven system. We have heard of situations where people who might have worked in disability their entire working lives, for 20 or 30 years, are being asked to go out and get ABNs. We have heard that some people with the skills to work in NDIS are not only asked to get ABNs, but they are having to register with three or four different agencies to try and make up a job.
This is not what we envisaged with NDIS. This was not our promise. Our promise was: a well-funded, quality service with the skills and supports for people with a disability. That means investing in the people who deliver the services—the people who do the work and who support people. Many of the people who work in the disability sector are heroes. They have chosen not to make money—they are not out millionaires. Many of them earn somewhere between $40,000 and $60,000, if they are full-time. They do this out of compassion and respect for their clients. They do it because they are people with big hearts and they care.
That brings me to the final point I wish to make about the NDIS, the NDIA and the rollout under this government. This government has basically got the pricing of some of the units wrong. They have pegged the unit price for core support items to the award for social and community services employee at level 2, pay point 3. For those who may not know what that means, that is an entry-level pay level for somebody who is not required to provide complex support and care. That is what most of the care is. Because it is pegged at the award level, the government is saying to state government and not-for-profit employees, 'You may be on a collective agreement above the minimum,' but it is now saying to those organisations that they have to renegotiate their agreements, cut the wages of their staff or look to cut back on services or slowly go broke. That is a fear that I have.
Within this quality safeguards and framework, if we are genuine about ensuring that people have access to the best quality and ensuring that they have access to the best trained staff, then we need to fund it properly and pay the proper wages. This government has got this wrong. We will see lots of people with the skills and qualifications in disability either have to take pay cuts, look for work elsewhere or cut back the level of service that they provide. We have heard from employers in the sector that, under the current pricing unit, somebody working in this area will only get three minutes of non-face-to-face time with their clients—three minutes to do everything from singing on to training, completing paperwork and handing over to the next shift. It is just not practical. It demonstrates how out of touch those in the government are with how disability care and support is rolled out. It is not putting the client at the centre. It is putting the price at the centre.
This government has screamed that Labor did not fund it. That is wrong. The money has always been there. It is their priorities—that they chose not to use consolidated revenue to help fund the NDIS. When Labor has chosen, we have said that we would do that. For example, $65 billion worth of tax cuts for big business is the priority of this government. Therefore, they are asking working people—people who may only earn $20,000 a year—to pay extra in tax to help fund NDIS at the same time as giving millionaires and big business a tax cut. Labor says: that is wrong; fund NDIS properly; look at the pricing unit; and do not expect working people to fund it. Stop giving your mates in big business a tax cut; stop giving millionaires a tax cut. If you were genuine about having a quality NDIS, then look to get businesses to pay their fair share of tax. Then we will have the resources to pay people properly. These are some of the concerns that people in my electorate are raising.
We know that there are going to be some heartbreak moments coming up as more and more not-for-profit community-based fund services look to see how they can continue. We have already found out that the Castlemaine Copy Centre will close at the end of the year. Under NDIS, they cannot continue to deliver the supported employee opportunities for the people that work there. It is heartbreaking for all of those supported employees. We have lost Radius. We worry who is next. Without a strong, quality safeguards and framework in place, without funding and without looking at how we fund people who work in the sector to have good-quality wages, we may see more and more really good organisations go to the wall.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (16:58): I too would like to make a contribution on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I have spoken on many occasions in this place about the National Disability Insurance Scheme and disabilities generally. I hope that when I do that I am reflecting the views of my community, which, regrettably, is over-represented with families that live with disability. My family lives with a disability. My grandson who lives with me, Nathaniel, is on the autism spectrum. So I have a lot of time and a lot of regard for families that live with disabilities. They do not want lectures. They do not want our sympathy. They just want to know that we are there to be supportive of them when they need it.
I ask you to cast your minds back to the inquiry of 2011 when the Productivity Commission was asked to report on disability care and support. They concluded this way: 'The current disability support arrangements are inadequate, underfunded, fragmented and inefficient, and give people with a disability little choice.' We in 2013 rose to that challenge. With due respect of those opposite, they supported Labor's position of the establishment of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They supported the passage of the act through this parliament.
In regard of this, I indicate that Labor will support the passage of this particular bill through the House of Representatives. In saying that, this support is not without some qualification, which I will come to. But, in speaking about the bill, an important step towards implementing the NDIS is that the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework be established. This was the recommendation that came from the COAG Disability Reform Council. This bill seeks to do that. The framework is based on delivering and strengthening the capacity of individuals, workplaces and providers, preventing harm, ensuring quality and enabling improvements in the oversight of this sector. I emphasise that we support this as a development. We support having strong and enforceable standards in this sector, and we certainly support the quality and safeguard measures provided in this bill.
Schedule 1 of the bill establishes the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the commissioner to undertake the implementation task of setting up a strong quality safeguard framework under the NDIS. The commissioner will be responsible for registering NDIS providers; overseeing provider quality, including information; and linkages and capacity building support for people with disability. At its core, this will see the introduction of information-gathering arrangements, creating an interface to other service providers, particularly in the health and education sectors and, sometimes, in the justice sector as well. The bill will also give the commission responsibility for compliance, complaints handling and risk management, including responding to and taking enforcement action against incidents of abuse and the neglect of participants. This will be complemented by the introduction of a practice standard and a code of conduct and by the introduction of a national policy of screening of workers, and there will be a focus on the provision of leadership to reduce and eliminate, as far as possible, restrictive practices. Section 2 of the bill introduces other minor administrative amendments resulting from the implementation review of the act, which was completed in late 2015.
It is my hope that the administrative framework instruments will ensure that the act operates in a way that is effective for the full implementation of the NDIS, redressing—or at least minimising—the many problems that we have seen so far under the Turnbull government's rollout of this scheme. I do not think I need to remind people about the problems that we found with the NDIS IT system at its introduction and the considerable delays that we have experienced. This was not the aim or intention of the bill when it was first brought before the House, but it certainly has had an impact on the usability of the service to date.
The bill also aims to maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the NDIS and support the robust, vibrant, independent and innovative NDIS market. The proposed amendments have been long awaited and certainly result from a series of reports and inquiries which have documented, on many counts, the weaknesses of the system, particularly in relation to safeguard arrangements. These inquiries include the Senate inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability, two recent Victorian inquiries in a similar vein, as well as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. All these inquiries have found failures to uncover and report abuse, inadequate screening of workers and ineffective regulatory arrangements. The need for the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission is further enhanced by the countless and disturbing number of cases of neglect and violence towards people with disabilities.
Something I did not appreciate until recently and something that put many things into perspective for me was the report by the Australian Cross Disability Alliance that revealed that a shocking 90 per cent of women with an intellectual disability had been subjected to sexual abuse, with six per cent of those women being under the age of 18. I am absolutely appalled by that statistic. I am appalled by those who have been convicted of these crimes. In many instances, they are people who have been employed to work in conjunction with and serving people with a disability. That is an indictment of our community as a whole. The truth is that people with a disability are three times more likely to experience abuse than any other. That is not the sort of environment I want to see my grandson growing up in. That is the reality, but it is something we all have the responsibility to try to do something to redress.
The Australian Cross Disability Alliance say that they are working tirelessly to spread awareness of institutionalised violence. They say—and I can agree with this—that it very much is Australia's hidden shame. They say that it is an urgent, unaddressed national crisis of epidemic proportions. While I welcome the passage of this bill through the House, people need to be clear that we need all stakeholders to work together, and that is the states, the employers in disability support and the unions representing the employees—as I say, all stakeholders.
One of my concerns is that too much discretionary power is being vested in the minister. Regrettably, in my opinion, this could lead to a number of inconsistencies, where separate agreements are being made, separate arrangements are being entered into and there is a lack of conformity between states and territories in the application of our national scheme. What is even more problematic, from my perspective, is that the quality and safeguard mechanisms enshrined in the bill apply only to NDIS participants and providers under that act. This leaves a significant gap for those people who are not participants in the NDIS but are victims of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Disability advocates have highlighted that this is an inadequate protection for people with a disability as a whole. Dr Jess Cadwallader, advocacy projects manager for violence prevention at People with Disability Australia, says this:
The NDIS probably at full capacity will include about 10 per cent of people with disability, so we have some concerns about people who fall outside of services that are funded by the NDIS where the safety and quality in their service provision is going to come from.
I think that is a very real concern for all of us. I do not know whether my grandson, for instance, will fall under the NDIS, but I do not want him, as a child with a disability, to fall into that category of being one in three children to be abused during their lifetime. As I said earlier, that is a dreadful statistic and one we should be all be offended about. The bill does not establish a national role in respect of workforce screening. There has to be that consistency across the board. The case is more than made for that by the many prosecutions we have seen to date for crimes that have been committed against people with disabilities.
I would like to conclude by talking about those who do not fall under the provisions of this bill. As I said earlier, only about 10 per cent of people with a disability will be covered by the NDIS. That leaves a heck of a lot of people with a disability outside the system.
Those people outside the system, the NDIS, still fall under the same statistic that says that 90 per cent of women with intellectual impairment will be subject to violence or abuse. To end that, I stand with my colleagues on this side of the House in calling for a royal commission into the abuse of people with a disability. I think it is the only way to establish a proper investigation and put the spotlight on this, an industry which is absolutely vital to people who live with disability.
There are people I get to see in my electorate regularly. Many of them are parents whose children with disabilities are in their 50s and 60s. Their parents often talk to me about what will happen when they pass on. It is not that they are looking for a way to accommodate their children; they are trying to make financial arrangements to do that. They are looking at how to protect their children's vulnerability in this ever-changing world. I think that the notion of having a royal commission is a positive thing in terms of, as I say, shedding light on disabilities generally, on how people are affected and looked after and on the measures we take to include them in our broader society, but, more than that, on how we go about protecting people with a disability. I think that falls to all of us. I suspect that my electorate is not much different from many others. If you look closely at those people we have the honour of representing in our communities, you will find that many do it very tough. Many are dealt a very hard hand in life, and they love their children as much as any of us do and want the best for their kids. One of the things that they keep talking about is that they want assurances that their kids can grow up to be safe and free from abuse into the future.
I support the passage of the bill through this House, but I believe there is an argument that this bill should be subject to a more detailed review. I think that, as it proceeds through the other place, it should be subject to a Senate inquiry and given more attention, particularly as to the various stakeholder groups who will be impacted by this regulation, so that we can hear from all stakeholders: from those working in the disability sector, from the providers and from employees and the unions representing them.
Mr HART (Bass) (17:12): I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017, subject to the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga. Despite what has been said by those opposite since the release of the budget, there is no doubting our commitment on this side to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Labor did the hard work in the establishment of the scheme. No amount of reinvention of history by those opposite can gloss over the fact that Labor—and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister—undertook the necessary consultation and obtained the necessary community licence for the establishment of the NDIS.
The NDIS, at its heart, represented a significant and dramatic shift, from services which were largely delivered under block-funded contractual relationships between service providers and the state and territory governments to a scheme where people with disability purchase and consume services from a market which is funded by the NDIS. The NDIS, accordingly, approaches the provision of services having regard to the level of disability and, of course, need. It is not based upon diagnosis of a particular condition or constructs such as liability. There is, accordingly, a significant difference between an insurer accepting liability for a particular injury and funding care which is related to that injury, such as in a case of compulsory third party insurance for a motor vehicle, and the NDIS. However effective and efficient no-fault liability schemes may be, they are constrained by the fact that responsibility ends with the particular condition or impairment which is related to the injury suffered in the accident or incident.
Nevertheless, there are particular potential problems where a market is created for the provision of these services, particularly where there is a single body that is a funding body such as the NDIS. There are particular potential weaknesses in the current safeguarding arrangements for disability services which are as a result of the disconnection between quality assurance and oversight regulatory functions.
This is, of course, not something unique to the provision of disability services. As has been mentioned by others who have spoken in relation to this bill, emerging markets are sometimes ripe for exploitation and abuse due to an imbalance in the power relationship between provider and consumer. This is typically due to the fact that in emerging markets there may be a lack of information about the rights of the consumer or the range of services that are available. Sometimes, however, the defects are more sinister.
There have been recent inquiries and reports which have highlighted weaknesses in the current safeguarding arrangements for disability services. These inquires include the Senate inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with a disability in institutional and residential settings; Victorian government inquiries; and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Multiple inquiries have found failures to undercover, report and respond to abuse. There is also inadequate national screening of workers. The inquiries have called for a nationally consistent provider accreditation and the use of behaviour support strategies that do not involve restrictive practices to reduce challenging behaviours.
It is self-evident that a strong quality and safeguarding framework is required to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm arising from poor quality or unsafe supports or services under the NDIS. Put another way, there is a disturbing similarity between the exploitation of children and the exploitation of those who suffer from disability. As a former practising lawyer I have often had to explain to clients and junior practitioners the concepts of fiduciary duties which arise from the relationship between a person subject to a disability and a person who may be in a position of power and responsibility. I often resorted to using the analogy of a person being required to look after a child. Self-evidently, those responsible for the care of children owe duties to the child in their care to protect them from harm. Similarly, in broad terms, the courts have held that where there is a special disadvantage and that disadvantage is established, particular duties are imposed upon a person who might, because of a particular transaction or relationship, assume responsibility for the disadvantaged person. This can, in the appropriate case, extend to imposing upon, for example, a bank a responsibility to ensure that a person getting a mortgage is not subject to undue influence.
There can be no doubt that it is important to get this legislation right. Labor will consider legislation carefully in consultation with people with disability, the providers, unions and other stakeholders. Indeed, these very groups have already shown concern that the legislation will provide too much discretionary power to the minister make regulations regarding the framework, which will not require consensus from the states and territories and which might undermine the consistency of the national scheme.
As part of this consultation process we want to refer this bill to a Senate inquiry to allow for full consultation and scrutiny of this legislation. We want to work with the government to ensure that this legislation achieves this object. However—and this is very important—the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework of itself does not provide a sufficient answer to systemic issues of violence, neglect, abuse and other shortcomings identified in the Senate inquiry report. Our joint response ability in this place is not just to act to safeguard those who are in receipt of services paid for by the NDIS. There are countless cases, harrowing cases, of abuse, neglect and violence toward people with disability that cannot and must not be ignored.
There is more than a suggestion that people with disability experience much higher rates of violence than the general community. The disturbing fact is that it is alleged that this violence occurs in places which should be places of safety for those with disability. The statistics demonstrate that instances of sexual assault exceed 90 per cent when a woman has an intellectual disability. Multiple speakers on this side have referred to this statistic, but I have to say it again: 90 per cent of women with intellectual disability have been sexually assaulted in their lives. Sixty per cent have been sexually assaulted before the age of 18. This is shameful.
Without in any way detracting from the very important work that has been undertaken by the child sexual abuse royal commission, there should be no argument whatsoever as to the necessity for a proper inquiry into institutional abuse of those with a disability, particularly having regard to the near certainty that a cohort of people with disability have been sexually abused during their life. Notwithstanding the horrifying nature of that statistic, children with a disability are at least three times more likely to experience abuse than other children—three times. Tragically, people with disability are often treated as unreliable witnesses or are not even permitted by law to provide testimony.
People with disability and their families have been campaigning for a royal commission for years. There are many cases that have described clear cases of abuse where perpetrators have never been charged and, worse, those perpetrators have been allowed to continue working with vulnerable people. We heard previously from the member for Lindsay as to those instances and as to a person contemplating their abuser or rapist looking after them.
Just as we have reacted with horror and disbelief at many of the stories that have been uncovered by the child sexual abuse royal commission, now is the time for us to face the fact that persons with disability have been abused. This abuse needs to be exposed in the same manner as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has uncovered decades of wilful blindness to the abuse of vulnerable children. The government claims that the NDIS quality and safeguards framework will be sufficient to address these horrifying systemic issues of violence, abuse and neglect of people with disability identified in the Senate inquiry's report. 'Sufficient' is not enough, not when we know that the framework, whilst very important, will apply to only approximately 10 per cent of people with disability participating in the NDIS.
The Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into the violence, abuse and neglect of people with disability in institutional care reported in November 2015. This government took 16 months to respond and chose to rule out a royal commission. To move forward, to heal and to know that we are on the right path to providing a safe environment for the vulnerable in our community this government must, as the previous government did for children, call a royal commission into the abuse of people with disability. Nothing less will enable people with disability, their families and their carers the opportunity to tell their stories to the Australian public, to share the pain that our inaction has caused and to create the legitimate chance to seek justice. A royal commission into the abuse of people with disability is what is required. It is the only way to compel witnesses, evidence and testimony. A royal commission is the only way to give clarity for a way forward, to make recommendations to prevent future abuses of people with disability.
It gives me great heart to know that I am part of a team on this side of the House that wants to get it right and that does not want to continue to make the same mistakes that have let down people with disability. As part of a Shorten Labor government, I will be part of a team that will establish a royal commission into violence and abuse against people with disability. Australian people with disability and their families have been campaigning for a royal commission for years. I call on the government to listen, to join Labor and to establish a royal commission into the abuse of people with disability. That decision needs to be made now.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (17:23): I thank all members for their contribution in the second reading debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017. The bill establishes a national independent body, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm. The NDIS is, of course, one of the largest social and economic policy reforms in Australia's history. At full scheme it is estimated that the NDIS will be supporting around 460,000 Australians with a disability. At that time the NDIS will be injecting $21 billion per year, each year, into the Australian economy.
The NDIS operates in a rapidly expanding market, driven by participant choice. Already participants are starting to exercise choice and control, and new innovative delivery models are constantly emerging.
The NDIS is a transformational social policy which has been delivered by this government. This will require a new, nationally consistent approach to quality and safeguards. This is critical to ensure that the new market based system delivers quality services and supports to people with disability in a way that promotes choice, control and dignity, and upholds basic human rights.
In February 2017, the Council of Australian Governments Disability Reform Council released the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. The framework was developed in consultation with a range of key stakeholders, including people with disability, their families, carers and providers as well as peak bodies. The bill is a very important step towards implementing the framework and giving effect to the Commonwealth government's regulatory responsibilities.
The commissioner will be responsible for overseeing quality and safeguards for full implementation of the NDIS, including information linkages and capacity-building elements of the scheme. The commissioner will also oversee quality and safeguards in other programs, including Commonwealth-funded advocacy services and older people with a disability who are receiving supports under the Commonwealth Continuity of Support Program—specialist disability services for older people.
The bill establishes compliance, complaints and risk management arrangements for the registration, and regulation of NDIS providers, including practice standards, a code of conduct, and mechanisms for complaints and reportable incidents. The commissioner will also be responsible for national oversight and policy settings in relation to worker screening, behaviour support and monitoring the use of restrictive practices within the NDIS, with the aim of reducing and eliminating such practices.
This bill will further the objects and principles of the act, and empower people with disability to exercise choice and control in the planning and delivery of supports and services under the NDIS. The proposed amendments mean that people with disability, their families and carers will have one single body to which they can raise concerns about the quality of supports or services, and a single source of nationally consistent and transparent information about NDIS providers.
For providers, the new national approach will enable a single registration and regulatory system across participating jurisdictions, reducing duplication and providing national consistency. The bill is intended to balance the need to provide appropriate protections that meet the Commonwealth's obligations in relation to regulation of the NDIS-funded supports and services, with the need to enable participants to take reasonable risks themselves so that they can reach their own goals. It is also intended to suit an emerging market based system in which participants are building their capacity to act as informed consumers. The workforce is growing rapidly, and new providers are regularly entering the market with innovative ideas and different models of providing services.
This bill complements and strengthens the existing measures to remove discrimination against people with disability in Australia and to provide them with support and assistance, such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1992; the provision of income support through the disability support pension; carer payment and carer allowance; the National Disability Strategy; and the National Disability Agreement.
In bringing this bill forward, the government is seeking to deliver a safe and high-quality NDIS. The government has provided $209 million over four years to establish this commission. The bill also makes minor amendments to the act in response to an independent review of the act. The amendments will improve the operation of the act in supporting the full implementation of the NDIS.
The review that was required by section 208 of this act considered the operation of the act in supporting the scheme and whether any changes were necessary for that purpose. The amendments in schedule 2 of this bill were recommended by the review and are supported by the Council of Australian Governments in its response to the review recommendations. The amendments are administrative and focus on ensuring the effective operation of the legislation. The amendments expand on the general supports that could be provided to people with disability under the scheme to support the implementation of information linkages and capacity-building elements of the scheme.
Additionally, the amendments clarify the operation of elements of the act to provide more guidance to participants and decision-makers—for example, how the disability requirements apply to people with chronic health conditions, how participants can request to have their plan reassessed, and how the agency can gather information on people who may be eligible for support as well as actual participants.
The government is fully committed to delivering a fully funded, high-quality NDIS. We have supported the NDIS from day one, and the establishment of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission demonstrates this ongoing commitment. Preventing abuse of people with disability is obviously broader than the NDIS. The commission's work will not replace reporting to the police or other authorities, but it does represent a very significant reform designed to strengthen the standards to address abuse and neglect for the most vulnerable in our society.
I am aware of the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. The government's position, as has been stated previously, is that, rather than proceeding with yet another inquiry through a royal commission or other form of inquiry, the Turnbull government is focused squarely on strong, clear and demonstrable action by establishing this NDIS Quantity and Safeguards Commission to register providers, handle participant complaints and manage and enforce a clear code of conduct for providers and workers. The government takes the firm view that the opposition will be doing the right thing by people with a disability by agreeing to the 0.5 per cent Medicare levy increase that would fully fund the NDIS and this new NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, rather than calling for an inquiry into the system that is very soon to be substantially reformed for the betterment of all Australians with a disability. I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The House divided. [17:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (17:41): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Petitions
Appointment
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (17:41): by leave—I move:
That Mr Vasta be discharged from the Standing Committee on Petitions and that, in his place, Mrs Wicks be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (17:42): I move:
That all words after ''That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
''The House declines to give this bill a second reading and calls on the Government to explain why it is desperate to legislate additional tax concessions for large businesses while pursuing a $50 billion tax cut for big banks and multinationals.''
Last week, gross debt crashed through half a trillion dollars. For the first time in Australian history, the amount of gross debt on issue exceeds $500 billion. This is an extraordinary thing given that this is a government lead by a man who once described projected gross government debt of $300 billion as being frightening, gigantic and an almost inconceivable level of debt. He was then describing debt projections. If we take debt projections today, the government budget papers put them not at $500 million but at $725 billion in 2027-28—and only then peaking because that is when the numbers stop. We have from this government extraordinary hypocrisy on debt. Projected debt is now twice what it was when the member for Wentworth described the debt projections as frightening, gigantic and almost inconceivable. Indeed, if they were driving debt trucks around then, they would need debt road trains today to depict the true level of debt being racked up under this government.
This government is not racking up debt because the global economy is going to hell in handbasket. There is no doubt, of course, that Australia took on debt during the global financial crisis, as, indeed, most developed countries did. We did so to put in place a response package which, as my friend and colleague the member for Rankin has pointed out, was described by Joseph Stiglitz as probably the best-designed stimulus package of any other advanced industrial countries in size, design, timing and how it was spent. But, as the member for Rankin has noted recently in an article for Crikey, IMF forecasts for the year ahead are relatively healthy on a global level—3.5 per cent for this year, 3.6 per cent for 2018—and so there is no excuse for the fact that gross debt is now increasing more rapidly under the Liberals than it did under the Rudd and Gillard governments. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments, gross debt grew by $226 billion in 69 months. Under the Abbott-Turnbull government, almost as much, $220 billion, was added in 44 months—as the member for Rankin points out: in less than two-thirds of the time.
The rate at which gross debt is growing is now $55 million a day quicker under the Liberals than it was under Labor. Indeed, were I to use my full time, then there would be another million dollars of gross debt added to the Australian credit card over and above the rate at which that was increasing during the global financial crisis—that is how fast debt is increasing under this government. They used to talk about debt and deficit disasters and talk about their superior economic management, but you do not hear much talk of that now, because of the rapid rate at which debt is increasing. That is why we, on this side of the House, have had to make some tough and responsible calls when it comes to tax measures. That is why we, on this side of the House, oppose the government's $65 billion tax cut to big business.
Now, it is certainly true that in the past there have been Labor governments that have supported the company tax cut but, given the debt position that Australia now finds itself in, it would not be responsible for Labor to support a measure of that kind. It is why Labor has taken the tough decision to say that we support extending the current tax rate for top income earners. If you listen to those opposite, they would have you believe that the earth will stop spinning if we continue taxing those earning over $180,000—which, of course, includes everyone in this House—at the rate at which they have been taxed for the last two years. Labor does not believe that; Labor believes a 49.5 per cent top marginal tax rate was appropriate for the last two years and, with debt increasing so rapidly, continues to be appropriate today.
That brings me to the bill that we are debating today. This bill has revenue implications, and that is why Labor will not be supporting schedule 2 of the bill. We have said that we will support schedule 1, which has a small but unquantifiable cost, but schedule 2, costing $80 million over the forward estimates, will not be supported by Labor. In good fiscal times—if we had the rivers of gold that flowed during the Howard and Costello years, in which there were a series of fiscally profligate decisions made by the Liberals—maybe you could give an argument for supporting this. Labor believes we have to carefully scrutinise any widening of corporate tax concessions. Treasury were unable to offer guidance on the medium-term fiscal impact of this measure. Stakeholders consulted felt the changes were benign, but Treasury, despite our requests, has not published in full the submissions that were made to it through the consultation process. In the absence of a compelling policy case, Labor's view is that fiscal considerations should take precedence. We do this with some regret, but it is necessary for us to make these tough fiscal calls.
I go now to a little of the detail of the schedules for this bill. Schedule 1 deals with the fact that currently a company is entitled to use past year losses to reduce taxable income, provided the company maintained the same majority ownership from the time the loss was made until the time it is utilised. This is called the continuity of ownership test. In the event that majority ownership has changed, past year losses may still be accessed, provided the company passes the same business test. But this test has been interpreted very narrowly. It has been held that 'same' does not mean 'similar', which means the test is quite restrictive and, potentially, one that stifles innovation. The measure originates from the Labor-commissioned 2012 Business Tax Working Group. It was raised again in submissions to the Re:think tax discussion paper. Treasury expect this measure will primarily benefit small and medium-sized enterprises seeking to expand or diversify by bringing in new equity partners.
Schedule 2—which, as I have said, Labor will not be supporting—gives taxpayers the choice to self-assess the effective life of certain intangible depreciating assets rather than using the statutory effective life, in working out decline in value. The effective life of an asset is used to calculate the decline in value of the intangible asset, and this bill applies to assets such as patents, copyrights and licences, and only applies to assets the taxpayer starts to hold on or after 1 July 2016. The argument that has been made for this in submissions to the Re:think tax discussion paper is the way in which such intangible assets are depreciated in Britain and the United States. But Labor does not feel that a sufficiently strong policy case has been made for the measures in schedule 2. Were the government to split the bill, Labor would be pleased to support what is currently schedule 1, but we cannot support schedule 2.
As I have said, the government has overseen Australian debt passing half a trillion dollars for the first time. We on this side of the House have a series of constructive measures that would deal with this. I have mentioned already our view that the top tax rate should continue at 49.5 per cent. As the shadow Treasurer noted in his MPI speech, there is no reason that the harsh measures in the 2014 budget which affect payments to low-income earners should be permanent while the tax cut to high-income earners should be temporary. Labor has also announced that we would cap deductions for managing tax affairs. This reflects the fact that in 2014-15 there were 48 people who earned more than $1 million but paid zero tax, and that 19 of these people claimed an average of $1.1 million in deductions for the use of their lawyers and tax advisers. According to our estimates, there are some 90,000 people who would be affected by capping 'managing tax affairs' deductions to $3,000 under a Shorten government. This is a deduction principally used by those at the top of the distribution. They will continue to be able to spend what they wish on lawyers and tax advisers, but only the first $3,000 of what they spend will be tax-deductible.
Labor has announced a package of measures to crack down on tax havens, which we know are one of the reasons why Australia is bleeding revenue to overseas jurisdictions. Tax havens have been estimated to hold $7.5 trillion of the world's financial wealth and to cost the global economy $200 billion in lost taxes every year. Labor's eight-point plan to tackle tax havens will add to the budget bottom line. Labor has also announced that we will pursue the closing of debt-deduction loopholes in a multinational tax policy. The government refuses to close debt-deduction loopholes, costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office at nearly $6 billion over the medium term at the last election. Labor continues to be committed to closing multinational tax loopholes—something which the government stubbornly refuses to get on board with.
Labor has also announced that we are committed to tax fairness through providing additional resources to the tax office, where it needs those resources. We will crack down on dodgy directors, to ensure fairness in business and to ensure that taxpayers are not done out of revenue due to directors being able to burn one company and start another in so-called phoenix operations. According to one expert, it is so easy you can almost register your dog as a company director. That is why Labor has called for a Director Identification Number, a straightforward measure that ensures that we see less phoenixing activity. That is, of course, good for businesses and workers, but it is good for tax revenue is well, because when dodgy directors trash their businesses and take the assets it is taxpayers who miss out.
Labor is not simply criticising the government for trying to blow holes in our tax net. We are also coming up with constructive solutions in order to tackle the unprecedented debt blow-out that we have seen under this government. It is absolutely vital that this government gets debt under control. But you do not do that through measures that widen tax loopholes, and a strong public policy case has not been made for such measures. Labor will support schedule 1 of this bill and oppose schedule 2. The bill is not split; we will oppose the bill in its entirety.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Neumann: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (17:56): I am not surprised at all that the member for Fenner wants to oppose schedule 2, because he knows, as does the Labor Party, that the measures under schedule 2 predominantly assist companies that are not unionised. This is a typical Labor approach—unless it supports the union movement and helps gather more union fees to be paid into the coffers of the Labor Party, then they simply will not support such measures. So there is no surprise there at all.
What does surprise me is the member for Fenner continuing to stand in this House and purport to be on the side of fiscal responsibility when Labor's only plan is higher taxes. And he has confirmed it again today. The only plan the Labor Party has is to have higher taxes for businesses—businesses that create jobs. But, again, in the same speech, the member for Fenner has also confirmed that the Labor Party also believes in higher taxes for individuals. They are a high-taxing party, and that is their only plan for government.
Interestingly, in order to spread the wisdom of the Labor Party policy platform, the member for Fenner also talks about multinational tax avoidance and cracking down on phoenix operations—two things that the coalition are already taking a lead with. Now, we welcome the Labor Party free-riding on our policies. We have no problem with that. And so they should, because ours are the policies that the Australian people know work to drive the economy and, in turn, attract investment, which, in turn, create jobs. But what I do find reprehensible is the suggestion by the member for Fenner that the action already being taken on multinationals, the task force that is already looking into phoenix operations, is somehow a Labor Party idea. My hope is that the next time the member for Fenner stands in this House he will have an original idea from the Labor Party beyond higher taxes.
But we are here today talking about the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentive No. 1) Bill 2017. This bill is part of a suite of measures reflecting this government's core commitment to the future of Australia's smart economy as contained in the National Innovation and Science Agenda. That agenda embraces a future of immense technological change and entrepreneurial innovation. By fostering culture and capital through tax breaks, incentivising universities and industry to collaborate, supporting talent and skills and making it easier to do business with government, the National Innovation and Science Agenda provides the blueprint to support investment and growth in innovative Australian businesses—investment which will underpin the Australian economy. It is a commitment which will support a smart future and turn around Australia's international competitiveness as a smart economy.
Australia slipped nine places, to 18th, in the overall IMD world competitiveness ranking in the five years from 2011 to 2015. In 2016 we gained a spot to 17. However, there remains great scope for improvement. In the latest The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-17, the IMD World Competitiveness Centre recognises Australia's strong macroeconomic and labour market position but warns:
Innovation represents Australia’s challenge and imperative in the face of low commodity prices ...
Furthermore, Australia's chief economist, Mark Cully, said in the Australian Industry Report 2016:
Competitive economies are ones that are open to the world, attracting investment and people. They have high levels of innovation and business start-ups ...
The National Innovation and Science Agenda responds to this challenge, and this bill is key to that commitment.
The bill introduces two measures designed to allow the tax system to further support innovative and groundbreaking businesses by encouraging a culture of calculated risk-taking and investment. These measures provide greater flexibility when dealing with company losses by relaxing the current same-business test and increasing depreciation benefits through the self-assessment of intangible assets. These changes will make a real difference to businesses—in particular, to Australian businesses at the forefront of our smart economy. Those who deal with intangible assets, such as patents, copyrights and the like, as well as those who are pushing the boundaries of entrepreneurial innovation, will be welcoming these measures.
Unlike Labor, who considered similar changes as part of the 2011 business working group, this government, the Turnbull coalition government, is acting to implement these reforms. The Turnbull government is again getting things done. We are making real changes in support of the business tax system to increase productivity and deliver flexibility to struggling businesses. We are a government that believes in supporting business, fostering entrepreneurship and driving growth to generate real jobs. Associated measures with this bill include: changes to tax laws to encourage angel investors and venture capital investment by providing tax incentives for early-stage investments; changes to extend the GST on low-value imported goods to level the playing field for Australian businesses against large international online sellers; changes to ensure global entities are unable to avoid their tax obligations by diverting Australian profits offshore; and changes to ensure the Tax Commissioner has the tools needed to impose penalties on those who breach their tax reporting obligations. These measures reinforce the Turnbull government's commitment to getting the balance right. Beyond these measures, the coalition government will go even further to hit the accelerator on innovation and jobs.
The bill before the House today is labelled the 'Enterprise Incentives No. 1' bill, but there is also a No. 2 bill that we shall be debating shortly which will reform Australia's insolvency laws to further stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation, helping to reduce the stigma associated with business failure. Let me outline bill No. 1, which we are debating today, in a little bit more detail. This bill includes a measure to increase access to a tax offset where a loss is made in one year and can be carried forward to offset future profits. It does so by relaxing the existing 'same-business test' and introducing a far more flexible 'similar-business test'. Rules that utilise losses are important and, frankly, necessary. They maintain the integrity of the tax system by preventing companies trading in losses. However, the current law is being interpreted too narrowly. At least that the Labor Party agrees with. It is considered restrictive and it is stifling innovation and investment in our economy. Businesses have been prohibited from using their past years losses where they have entered into new types of transactions or business activities. This only inhibits growth and investment and discourages businesses which have made losses from seeking new investors or exploring new profit-making activities because they may be denied the ability to leverage past years losses.
The change from same-business test to similar-business test allows businesses to be more agile and adapt to new opportunities without restrictive tax penalties. This is especially beneficial to start-ups, who may have accumulated tax losses in their early years and will now have a greater ability to adapt their business to a changing environment by seeking new and diverse business opportunities without jeopardising the use of those losses. Importantly, the new similar-business test will apply from 2015-16 and future income years, allowing businesses to immediately benefit from these changes.
The second measure outlined in the bill, which the Labor Party disagrees with, makes changes to the depreciation of intangible assets by allowing business owners to self-assess the life of these assets. This complements the similar-business test by providing further flexibility to one's business strategy and investment. It recognises that innovative businesses are more likely to hold a high proportion of intangible, knowledge based assets, such as patents and copyrights—assets that are sometimes referred to as intellectual property.
In fact, a recent research paper issued by the Office of the Chief Economist in 2016, 'Australian geography of innovative entrepreneurship', found that high intellectual property generation goes hand in hand with entrepreneurship. In other words, intangible, knowledge based assets are intrinsically linked to innovation. That is why allowing businesses to self-assess the life of these assets to align them to the actual number of years that the asset provides an economic benefit will increase depreciation benefits and decrease the cost of investment in these assets. It also encourages the transfer of these assets between businesses to better leverage and commercialise them. The proposed law also allows for a recalculation of this effective life in later years should circumstances change. These are essential changes to encourage investment, innovation and entrepreneurship on the front line of the Australian economy.
This bill reflects the Turnbull government's continued investment in the future of Australian businesses and the many millions of jobs they create and sustain, an investment which recognises the changing nature of the global business environment and encourages businesses to take calculated risks, test new markets and grow Australia's smart economy. These and other measures supporting the government's National Innovation and Science Agenda are making a real difference to the ability of Australian businesses to respond to new markets and changing global pressures, and increase Australia's global competitiveness. That is good news; that is good news for all Australians. It is for that reason that I commend this bill to the House.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (18:08): This is the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprises Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017, and it forms part of this government's—wait for it—innovation agenda. This is what should really be talked about as the government's 'Seinfeld innovation agenda'; it is the innovation agenda you have when it is an innovation agenda about nothing. It is sort of like a Clayton's innovation agenda, you see, because, for a government that loves to come in here and talk the talk of innovation, what is it actually doing to deliver on innovation?
Let us just run through some of the things that this government likes to do when it comes to innovation. Let us start with, let's say, NBN. That sounds like a great way of bringing forth innovation in our economy: giving everyone access to high-speed broadband internet. Well it turns out that, under this government, it is anti-innovation, because instead of using some of the best technology that good taxpayer money could buy, like optical fibre to the home, what do we have? Copper. It is great to use 19th-century technology when it comes to our high-speed broadband internet. Thank you very much, government!
In fact, it is working so well that the ACCC has to come and do an inquiry. It has to get people out there testing that the speeds are actually matching what they are being sold as. That is how innovative this government is with their agenda. But then you think, 'You know what would be great? If we made sure the people of this nation, the people we want to encourage into innovative enterprise, are well educated and supported as they go through school and university.' But no. What this government has decided to do is—despite its claims and despite its promises that there would not be a dollar difference between what the previous Labor government had proposed, when it came to education, and under that new government there—come into this place and say, 'Here's our new education agenda. We're going to give an increase of funding on top of the cuts we have already delivered,' which will deliver to our schools $22 billion less than what they would have had under the plans of the previous Labor government. That is how much they like to support innovation.
And then you think, 'Where do we see that really come forward next? Universities!' Universities should be centres of innovation, but when we turn and look at the policy for universities, we see more cuts from this government. That is what they have delivered on, when it comes to innovation. Then I thought to myself, if we want to look at the innovation agenda of the Turnbull Liberal government, where would we see that innovation really thrive? Where would we see the research, the development, the looking at how we can do things in new ways to bring forward new economic growth? It is that centre of excellence that has delivered us great technology, such as wi-fi and so many other great advances, to not just our nation but the global economy: the CSIRO. And Lo and behold, the innovation agenda of the Turnbull Liberal government delivers whopping big cuts to the CSIRO, the centre of science and innovation in this nation. That is the great innovation that this government is bringing forward for our nation. It is sucking us backwards when it comes to innovation. It is an innovation policy of nothing. It is the Seinfeld innovation policy.
Meanwhile, you have to contrast that with Labor's approach, which was to bring forward a proper-functioning national broadband network that would have delivered fibre to the home, fibre to the premises, fibre to business. I had a local business come to me just the other day and tell me how they had to go and fork out themselves to deliver fibre to the premises because not only were they never going to get fibre under the NBN but also it was taking so long for the copper NBN fibre to the node to come to their street, and it was inhibiting their business. In other parts of my electorate, such as Thornleigh and Armadale, we have areas that not only are having to wait for NBN but also are so far away from the exchange they cannot get ADSL. To make matters even worse, there are mobile black spots, so they cannot even get wireless internet. That is how much this government supports innovation. And then they rip $22 billion out of our education system that is supporting all our kids to really drive forward the future of the economy. I mean, what sort of innovation is that?
Then we come to—as the previous speaker was remarking—schedule 2 of this legislation, which will give taxpayers the choice to 'self-assess the effective life of certain intangible depreciating assets rather than using the statutory effective life in working out the decline in value'. If anyone is still awake after I explained what schedule 2 does, let me take you back to a little lesson that I learnt as a baby lawyer. When I was doing a thing called the articles training program one of the things they like to teach you as a lawyer—not many lawyers remember this for much longer into their career, I have to say—is a little bit about accounting, a little bit about how to read financial statements, what to look for and things you need to be aware of. One of the things that I have always kept in my head from those lessons is that, when it comes to looking at financial statements, it is really important to look at how a business is depreciating its assets, because you can hide all myriad of things in the depreciation of assets.
That is why we have some pretty strict government regulation—the law—around how we depreciate assets, particularly intangible assets. It is quite important that we do that because people like to play around with them. At the end of the day, there can be—I acknowledge—reasons that the rate of depreciation on certain assets, tangible or intangible, can differ, given the conditions and circumstances of a particular business. However, what the government have not done; what they have, in fact, completely failed to do, is explain to us here, Her Majesty's loyal opposition—hopefully not Her Majesty's for too much longer!—how much this is going to cost. How many businesses are going to make use of this? What is going to be the economic benefit of making this change? The previous speaker said this is going to unlock investment from the private sector into growing businesses that—presumably—will employ hundreds of thousands of people. But we have seen no evidence of that from the government. They have not been able to provide any briefing, any example or any evidence that it is going to do that. At the end of the day, I have this sneaking suspicion that a business invests in and create intellectual property and other intangible assets because it is good for their business. It is the thing they invented—it is how their run their enterprise. They do not do it because they might be able to get some tax advantage on the way through.
At the end of the day, the government have come forward with a piece of legislation. Schedule 1 looks great, but they have come forward with schedule 2 and said: 'We want you to agree to people being able to self-assess the depreciation on intangible assets. We can't really tell you what the effect of that is going to be, but we know it's definitely going to increase debt. We know it's going to cost the government bottom line.' Let us just think about that. Let us just reflect, when it comes to impacts on the bottom line of the budget under this government. The coalition has been in government for four years—four years way too long. In that time, they have managed to more than double the gross debt of this nation. In four short years—though they seem very long—they have more than doubled it, so that we have now gone over the half a trillion dollar mark. Mr Deputy Speaker, I just used the word 'trillion' with reference to the national gross debt. That is how bad things have got under this government. This is the government that said that there was a budget emergency—but then they come into this place with legislation where they say: 'Look, we really need to pass this tax change which is going to cost the budget bottom line, but we can't actually tell you what benefit it's going to provide to the community.'
We on this side just ask for a few simple things when it comes to giving our support for taxation legislation: 'Can you show us that it's going to be a good idea?' would be the first thing. The government has failed to deliver on that. But they dress it up as an enterprise incentive, as part of their innovation agenda—an agenda that has delivered precisely diddly squat for this nation. And that basically sums up the entirety of the agenda and the outcomes of this government.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (18:17): It is good to follow the member for Burt, who has obviously become quite emotional about some of these issues in his remarks. What I might do is work through the specific benefits in this bill for the business community, and, indeed, for the broader Australian community. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017 operates, as you know, Deputy Speaker, within the environment of the broader National Innovation and Science Agenda of the government. The agenda is very broad, and one of the things that the agenda had to do, unfortunately, was clean up the problems that were left behind by the previous government. Nowhere was this more clear than in the area of employee share schemes. Basically, the idea with an employee share scheme is you say to somebody: 'My small business might not be able to pay you as much as perhaps a big business down the road. We can't afford to pay you as much, but I will tell you what: we will give you an incentive through the issuing of share options to you so that one day, if the business works out well and everything is successful, those shares could actually be worth some money. That's a reason for you to come and work for our small company.' When you get employee share options, Deputy Speaker, you do not get any benefit until you actually sell them or exercise them. In many cases, that benefit never comes about, because the business perhaps does not go as well as hoped and the benefit is just not there. The logical thing to do is that the person is joining the business should only pay tax when they actually make that benefit—when they actually sell those options. When they crystallise, they make a profit.
Under the previous government, when share options were issued to a new employee that created a tax event on that day. So you had this absurd situation where share options which had no practical value because they could not be sold or otherwise crystallised had to have tax paid on their perceived value on day one. That basically meant that for small businesses that were trying to compete with big businesses and were saying 'Take the lower salary, get the share options', those share options were actually, if anything, a disincentive because you had to pay an up-front tax on something that you may not, in fact, ever realise any gain on.
It was an important part of the Innovation and Science Agenda to fix that and to ensure that tax is only paid in employee share schemes when a benefit actually accrues. That is self-evidently how it should have been from the start. Unfortunately, because of the incompetence of those opposite, the Treasurer, as he then was, and others created a very difficult situation for Australian start-ups. To the credit of the opposition, they did acknowledge this when we fixed this problem back in 2015. It is a very important part of the innovation agenda.
In terms of the Innovation and Science Agenda under this government, we have seen an extraordinary boom in the Australian venture capital industry. Venture capital in Australia has typically been a much smaller part of our economy than it is in similar Western democracies, and that is a problem. We want to have an innovation nation. We want people taking risks, creating new companies and generating all the benefits that flow for the country from so doing. For various reasons, historically, we have had a small venture capital industry. Having been involved in it from as far back as 1999, I have a good understanding of the constraints on that industry.
In 2015, under the Innovation and Science Agenda, the Prime Minister said that investments in small start-up companies, small angel investments, would be free of capital gains tax and also that there would be a tax offset of 20 per cent for those investments. In addition, early stage venture capital limited partnerships—a bit of a mouthful—would receive a 10 per cent tax offset for investment in start-ups. We have seen a huge boom in Australia of venture capital investment in recent years, so much so that in the last three or four years the industry has more than tripled in size. It is still too small relative to the size of the economy; we want it to be bigger. It has gone from being, frankly, a cottage industry in this nation in 2013 to something that is now quite substantial and has a significant number of professionals focused on the task of identifying and supporting early stage Australian investment—so important as part of the Innovation and Science Agenda.
This bill is important for a number of reasons. One is the change in relation to the same-business test for accessing prior year losses. This means that when a company loses money, in subsequent years it can claim those losses as an offset against future profits. But, historically, if that company has changed or evolved in any way, the capacity to claim those prior year losses has not been there. So the ability to access those losses is lost and that creates a range of difficulties because effectively those previous losses are just trapped in the company. This new measure will relax the operation of the same-business test to allow entities to seek out new capital and new opportunities in order to return to profitability. When they conduct the same business, irrespective of whether they have entered into transactions which change the legal status of the company, if it is effectively the same business they can claim those losses. There is a qualitative test as well, which is that a similar business means a similar business. So you cannot turn around and do something completely different and claim those prior-year losses, but you can claim those prior-year losses so long as the new activity is substantially similar.
This is a really important change. It is going to enable businesses to more easily pursue change, to pursue new opportunities, without the fear of, 'If we go down that path we are going to lose access to the ability to claim those previous-year losses.' At the moment, there is a strong disincentive to do that, so businesses tend to be wrapped into a fairly tight spot. This is because if they change their activities or structure too much they are not able to claim those prior-year losses. So it is very important to proceed on this measure.
The other measure in this bill concerns the depreciation schedules. The member for Burt was making some fairly wild remarks about the horrible things that might ensue from allowing businesses to determine the time period over which they depreciate assets, but it is really very simple. Basically, at the moment, if you have an intangible asset, like intellectual property or a whole range of other things, there is a schedule. That schedule might say you should depreciate the value of that thing over a certain time. That time might be five years or 10 years and will vary from case to case.
But just say that in your business you believe that that particular asset is going to be completely used up within three years. Maybe it is a brand that you have developed. You have developed intellectual property in that but you believe that in three years you will have moved on to something else. You will be able to depreciate that over a shorter period. And that is a good thing. It basically says let's let the businesses who are the owners of these assets determine their useful life, not an arbitrary number selected by some accountants. And it is very important to understand that simply being able to change the period over which an asset is depreciated does not change the value.
If the value of the asset is $1 million—I can allay the member for Burt's fears—the total amount that businesses will be able to depreciate against the value of that asset is still $1 million. They are not going to be able to go off into a dark corner and come up with some other number. It is just that they will not have to depreciate it over a period of time that may be inconsistent with the time that the asset will operate for.
It is a very important change because, as the economy changes, the ability for schedules that are arms length and not related to a particular business to determine how long an asset will be valuable for, really, goes away. This is because business is changing, every business is different, and the notion that we can apply a one-size-fits-all solution is wrong. And that is going to distort commercial decisions. If people say, 'You know what? I've got to depreciate this asset over 10 years, even though it only has three or four years useful life,' they are going to be less likely to invest in that asset. The reason they will be less likely to invest in it is that they are only going to be able to claim the value of it over a really extended period. That is a mistake.
This change covers a range of assets, including intellectual property such as patents, designs, copyrights, licences and so on, other licences that apply to spectrum and data casting, rights to telecommunication assets and software that has been developed in-house as well. This is a really important initiative. But it all does exist in the whole area of promoting innovation and investment. I know that is something you feel very passionate about, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan.
It is important, as always, to contrast these sorts of important measures with the short-sighted ideas of those opposite and really important, in particular, to focus on the impact of tax on small business. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, many small and medium sized businesses are struggling. Many of them, frankly, do not make a whole lot of money. And the more that government takes, the harder it is for them to invest back into their businesses, employ more people and so on.
There is a massive contrast on this point. Earlier this year the Senate, to its credit, supported the government's legislation to reduce the rate of company tax for companies with a turnover of between $2 million and $50 million. It is important to note that a business that turns over $2 million does not make $2 million. It probably actually makes a tiny fraction of $2 million. There are lots of small businesses in Australia that would be very happy to make five per cent on turnover. If they are turning over $2 million and making five per cent, that would be $100,000. That is not much more than the average household income. Those are the sorts of businesses we are talking about here.
Over the decade the benefit to those small- and medium-sized businesses of these tax cuts is about $25 billion. It is very important to note that those opposite do not support those legislated tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of between $2 million and $50 million. They say that these businesses are multinationals and evil corporations that need to be restrained. We say that businesses with a turnover of between $2 million and $50 million are actually small- and medium-sized businesses. About 113,000 of these businesses in Australia will benefit from the government's tax changes. The total benefit to those businesses over the decade is about $25 billion.
Let us look at the actual benefit to these businesses over the decade and at what those opposite will take away because they oppose this legislation. It is impossible of course to oppose legislation and then say, 'But we won't change anything.' They oppose it. If the changes do not go through—and they will not if those opposite are elected—the average cost to those 113,000 businesses is over $200,000. What those opposite are saying effectively is that they would like to impose an average tax increase of over $200,000 on small- and medium-sized businesses in Australia. That is pretty extraordinary when you think about it. It is very important that they are held to account on this. They voted against this measure because they think a business with $2.1 million in revenue is a huge multinational at the big end of town that needs to be kept down. But these are small- and medium-sized businesses that employ millions of Australians. The average tax increase that they will impose is over $200,000 across that range of businesses.
There are really different approaches on innovation. There are important changes in this bill, which I very much commend to the House. It is so important that we as a nation stay focused on innovation and on entrepreneurs and give them the tools they need to succeed.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:32): I follow the speech of the member for Banks. It is the case that Labor do not support the big corporate tax cuts that this government is offering. We do not support the big banks and the big mining companies getting a massive tax cut when the average Australian hardworking family will pay more tax under this government's budget. Nonetheless, the proposal to cut corporate taxes will also take $65 billion out of the revenue measures for a government in the future. You talk about properly funding education, Medicare and health care. The budget simply cannot afford at this time to be cutting corporate taxes for the wealthiest multinational corporations, many of which send their profits overseas, whilst at the same time making the average worker and their family, on $60,000 a year, pay $325 a year more in tax. That is unfair. Of course, Labor will oppose reforms such as that.
Labor supports the changes in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to supplement the same-business test with the similar-business test. The similar-business test improves access to losses for companies and certain trusts that have changed ownership. The similar-business test also applies in working out whether a debt is written off as a bad debt or can be deducted in an income year and whether tax losses of listed widely held trusts can be used. The measure's origins are from Labor's commissioning in 2012 of the Business Tax Working Group and were raised again in submissions to the 'Re:think' tax discussion paper.
Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to provide the choice to self-assess the effective life of certain intangible depreciating assets the taxpayer starts to hold on or after 1 July 2016 rather than using the statutory effective life currently specified under the law. The bill only applies to some assets—for example, some patents, copyrights and licences—and only applies to assets the taxpayer starts to hold on or after 1 July 2016. The new law also allows the taxpayer to recalculate the effective life in later income years if the effective life the taxpayer has been using is no longer accurate because of changed circumstances relating to the nature of the asset's use.
Under this government, we have seen a blow-out in the debt and deficit of the Commonwealth budget and, for the first time ever in Australia, the government has allowed gross debt to reach the dizzying heights of half a trillion dollars. This is an astounding figure and an indictment on the economic credentials of the Abbott-Turnbull government—particularly when you consider the pace at which they have managed to accumulate such a crippling debt. Despite the government's constant blame-shifting, the figures speak for themselves, and the figures show that the Abbott-Turnbull government has been racking up debt much faster than Labor did when we were in government. In fact, the coalition is racking up gross debt at $1.66 billion a month faster than Labor did when we were in government, and, when it comes to net debt, $511 million a month quicker. No matter which way you carve it, the numbers do not lie. Gross debt has grown by $381.7 million a week or $54.5 million a day quicker under the Liberals, and net debt has blown out by $118.2 million a week or $16.9 million a day faster on the Abbott-Turnbull government's watch.
In their May budget, the government confirmed their deficit for the coming 2017-18 year will be 10 times bigger than was predicted in their first budget, and gross debt equivalent to $20,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Compared to last year's budget, GDP growth is down, employment is down, wages growth is down and unemployment is up when you look at the forecasts of this government. And they are forecasting 100,000 fewer jobs.
Given the debt blow-out under the government, Labor cannot support an expanded corporate tax concession that costs the budget over $80 million in the forward estimates. Labor is also committed to ensuring that Australia is a country of innovation but one that lives within its means, and not long ago this was a bipartisan goal. In 2015, Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals were waving their arms around, telling everyone who would listen that they were all about innovation, but no sooner had they begun to spruik their new-found path to becoming a more nimble and agile nation, they fell silent. The Prime Minister worked out and was advised that this new notion, this new message, was not working for him, and they quickly backed off on that message. This actually pleased some members of the government. It pleased some members on that side, with Tony Abbott quoted as saying: 'It's good that we are no longer talking about innovation and agility.'
Labor believes, as stated by the shadow minister for the digital economy and the future of work, that, if we are not talking about a smarter nation, we are not going to do the things that make us a smarter nation. For this reason, we would introduce the smart visa targeting science, medical, academic, research and technology skills that are in short supply here. We would allow internationally recognised specialists to collaborate with Australian universities, researchers, scientists and start-ups to help get the right balance. We want to make sure that the sector can move ahead whilst ensuring that Australians do not get left behind. The Abbott-Turnbull government, on the other hand, is a government that has slashed support for innovation, degraded science and research, and made deep cuts into programs that had been working successfully with Australian businesses to create more jobs.
In conclusion, we will not be supporting tax cuts for corporate businesses in Australia, particularly those big businesses that include the banks and big mining companies. We will seek to keep that revenue within the budget to properly fund education and to properly fund health, research and medical science, and to support Medicare. We will properly fund a TAFE system that delivers proper vocational education and training for Australians. We will support apprentices in our nation. We do support measures that do improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the tax system. That is why we do support some of the measures that have been adopted in relation to this series of bills. But we do not support moves that do take close to $80 million out of the budget on the basis of what we believe is a miscalculation. In light of the nation's current fiscal situation and the government's total inability to explain the case for schedule 2 of this bill, Labor will not be supporting it.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (18:40): Can I just acknowledge the words of the previous speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, and state: the hypocrisy of the Labor Party knows no bounds. To sit here in this parliament and talk about a deficit—the deficit that was created by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years and the member for Lilley, Wayne Swan, who was the Treasurer during that time. They took the nation from the world owing us money to we owing the world money. What a disgrace—to sit in this parliament and to throw such virtues around this place with no foundations.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr LITTLEPROUD: It is great to see those opposite wanting to interject. It obviously hits a chord to understand that their lunacy during the years of the reign of that Labor government has taken us from a place where the world owed us money to, now, we owing the world. What a disgrace to come into this parliament and to try to sit here with some virtues and then, to overlay that, to try to tell the people of Australia that they understand small business and that they understand the engine room of this nation.
Let me tell you about small business. I am fortunate enough to have been a small-business owner. I am proud to say that I am a small-business owner. In fact, I can go further than that. I was formerly in the finance industry where I supported a lot of small businesses that helped, particularly, regional and rural Australia employ people. You have to understand how small business works. You have to understand the economic impact that they bring to regional communities, but also to metropolitan communities—the bricks and mortar that people are prepared to invest. The capital that people are prepared to invest in our communities to employ people is significant. For the Labor Party to come into this place and to oppose legislation that will support small businesses that are doing the heavy lifting in this economy—they are not like the union hacks that sit opposite and that want to drive up costs for businesses and drive up those impediments for business to be able to do the things that they need to do—and to come in here to put another shackle around the small-business industry is appalling. But it is something that we have become used to.
What this bill is doing is allowing small businesses to be able to increase their access to losses. We have to understand that small businesses do not always have an easy cash flow ride. There are times when that cash flow does hit a heavy wall. We have to be pragmatic and we have to be supportive to ensure that we put a framework and an environment around small business to ensure that we: let them ride through those tough times; simplify the tax losses; allow them to change their ownership and be agile. We talk about an agile world. Well, it is an agile world as a small-business owner. As a small-business owner, I can tell you that you have to be agile. The market is forever changing. You forever have to be at the forefront of not only technology but the marketplace. You actually have to have a government that is prepared to put an environment around you and that understands the challenges that you will face as a small-business owner. If you do not, we will go back to what I talked about before in terms of unemployment. In my home town of Warwick, retailers employ one in seven people. It is a significant employer in my local community. Without them—that backbone—being part of our local economy, I can assure you that we will not have a small regional community like Warwick.
But that is something you would not expect the Labor Party to understand. That is something that the latte-sipping set from that side, that very rarely get outside Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane, would hate to understand and to get an appreciation of—that is, what small businesses are like in rural and regional Australia. It is simple for them to sit in their latte sets, to be able to sit where they are and not have an appreciation of what is driving this nation. If you have a strong regional Australia, you have a strong nation.
But there are also some very important measures around this. It is about the flow of capital. You would not expect those opposite to understand that flow of capital. The only way that they understand that is more debt. Thanks to Wayne Swan's years, his legacy lives on. And, yes, our debt has lifted. There is a legacy from Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. They have left a legacy to every Australian child for years to come, thanks to the decisions that they made—and what decisions were they? They were Pink Batts and school halls. Even as I get around my electorate now, it is quite interesting. I was at a school hall that Kevin Rudd helped build that now has to be repaired. These mindless decisions that were made in haste by the Labor Party are affecting our economic credentials now, so that we are now going back to ensure that we are pulling economic levers that will drive our nation's economy, that will drive us forward.
We are pulling the economic levers that will make sure that our nation rebuilds from the legacy of Wayne Swan and his time as Treasurer of this nation. It may not be attractive to everybody, but this is the heavy lifting a government has to do which is responsible for how we are going to take this nation forward to repair the economic vandalism that took place by the Labor Party over those long years—those long, dark years, where this nation went from having the world owe us money, to us owing the world money. It is still taking a significant toll and effort by us to ensure that we get those settings right, that we put the environment around a small business economy that will ensure the growth of our nation.
Capital is important and, if we do get that setting right, it is important to ensure that we have—I think they call it—a similar test, a qualitative test, to ensure that new transactions allow for that generation of new income sources, for capital to flow into small businesses. Capital is one of the hardest things for a small business to achieve. As a former banker, I can tell you, capital is king. If you cannot get capital you do not grow. This tax measure, these incentives that we are putting in place, are ensuring that we are putting an environment around the growth of small businesses in regional and rural Australia—and even in the latte-sipping sets of those opposite who only care about metropolitan Australia. But they do not seem to care, they want to come in and oppose everything.
This mantra of bipartisanship goes missing very quickly from those opposite when it becomes politics and they can see a cheap political point to be made out of nothing. But this is at the expense of the good men and women who are across our nation and employing millions of young Australians. The 25,000 small businesses in my electorate of Maranoa—that goes across 42 per cent of this state—are the ones who the heart and soul of my electorate. They are the ones who are doing the heavy lifting—not the union thugs of those opposite that they support. This is about real measures, real economic decisions that will make sure that we have a future for those men and women not only in the metropolitan areas but in regional and rural Australia.
I think the other important facet of this bill is around this self-assessment of the effective life of depreciable intangible assets. We are now moving into intellectual property and intangible assets, and allowing greater ability around the depreciation of those assets. As we move in to a more nimble environment globally, it resonates locally. I can give you a couple of examples—particularly from my electorate of Maranoa—one where innovation has been at the forefront since Federation. In fact, our national airline carrier was formed in my electorate because of innovation that had to happen. The airline industry in Australia was created in Longreach, in my electorate. Qantas, our national carrier, was formed there through necessity, through innovation of those of yesteryear that saw the ability to innovate their business, to take it forward. But they needed an environment around them that the government set to ensure that survival—and look at them today. But fast-forward to our present day, when, only in the last three months, we were fortunate enough to have the Governor-General visit my electorate and open a vinegar factory.
It is the first vinegar factory in Australia's history. An entrepreneur has come to Stanthorpe in the Granite Belt and created a new industry through innovation, with his intellectual property and with the tangible assets that he has. He has come into that small community to employ 10 people and is looking to expand further and to employ up to 30 people. That is an exponential increase in the population of the community of Stanthorpe. That is about a government putting in an environment around a business to ensure that they have the ability to prosper and to grow and to actually undertake the development of that intellectual property they hold. That is intellectual property that is world's best, that has now been recognised internationally around the world by the standard they have set. But the environment that we have set as a government is there to allow them to do it, and that is what this bill will undertake. But I won't just stop there.
Let me talk about the Queen Garnet plum, also developed in my electorate. It is a plum that has the highest amount of antioxidants and anthocyanins in the world. In fact, it has had trials on rats that have seen the transformation of heart disease and diabetes, and there are now moves toward human trials. The opportunity sits because of that intellectual property that was allowed to grow and be fostered by a government, and this bill will continue to allow it to be fostered. It would allow putting in an environment to allow that innovation and to see 75,000 trees produced and picked, as we speak. It is something that we as a nation should be proud of.
We as a nation and as a government set the environment around those people who are prepared to take those risks, to step forward, to put their capital up and to take the risks that we ask them to do. They should not be hamstrung by a government that wants to hold them back, that wants to be the holder of all authority and all power and all centralisation. Our job as a government is not to get in the lives of those we represent, but to get out of their way. We should allow them to innovate, to actually grow and prosper, to give them that environment and to ensure that they attract the capital they need to be able to do the things they have to do. That is what a government should do, not take the heavy-handed approach that we have seen over the decades of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, that have seen us go into record debt levels, the legacy of which we are trying to move.
While the former speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, talked about an $80 million hit to the budget, let me tell you that this will have exponential benefits through the environment that we have set around the people that we believe in. The people that we believe in, in this nation, will take our nation to the next level. We have faith in the Australian people. We have faith that they will take our nation forward, and our job is to set that environment around them. We should not think that government can do it better but that people can do it better if we get out of their way. If we set that environment and are able to support them then we will ensure that this nation prospers. Not only will it prosper with the best science and innovation in the world but also with the best prosperity in the world. That will give younger Australians, the next generation of Australians, the ability to have a job not just in metropolitan Australia but also in electorates like mine in Maranoa. That is what this government needs to do.
While we talk about bipartisanship with those opposite, it goes missing when the heavy lifting has to happen. That is the sad fact of what happens with those opposite. If we are genuine we will walk into this place with our heads held high about what we are trying to do for the Australian people. We will walk out and put forward an environment that allows them to prosper. We are investing $80 million in those people we believe in, and we are complementing that with tax measures to ensure those multinational companies out there are paying their fair share. That is the right thing to do by the Australian people, to ensure that those companies that want to come in and take advantage of the Australian public and the Australian marketplace do pay their fair share of tax. I do not think there is anyone that would say they should not. That is the responsible measure, and it is a responsible measure that this government has undertaken. We undertook it because we saw the necessity to do it, to support our own and to support the Australian people that need the environment around them to go forward.
I am proud to say that we are now going to ensure that those multinational companies around the world that are in our marketplace will pay their fair share. This will support our nation going forward and give us the opportunity to take these measures. But those opposite seem to think that it is better to support those multinational companies around the world rather than our own companies. This is about taking our nation forward with a measure that is pulling an economic lever that will take us to the next level. This is doing the heavy lifting to pay back the legacy of Wayne Swan, who, as the Treasurer of this nation, destroyed our economy to the point of putting us on the brink. We are now taking this nation back. We are taking steps to ensure that Australia goes forward in the direction that it deserves. I am proud to say that our government is at the forefront of that. Our government is standing up, and I say to those opposite: put away the hypocritical virtues and come with us on this journey, because Australia will be better for it.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (18:55): I am very happy to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017. This is about supporting small business. This is another key plank, another key part, of this government's plan for jobs and growth, and it sits very comfortably side by side with some of the other key planks of our plan, such as the government's enterprise tax cuts for small and medium businesses. It sits very comfortably side by side with our multinational tax avoidance laws, which, sadly, those opposite opposed, but which, nonetheless, have clawed back almost $3 billion and counting so far in tax from multinationals. Of course, we are talking here about tax which always should have been paid. And this sits very comfortably side by side with our innovation agenda.
I stand here, in this parliament, of and from Australia's small business middle-class. This is, significantly, as a result of the economic plan that this government took to the last election, at which I was elected to ensure this government could pursue this economic plan. When it comes to the government's innovation agenda—and I see these amendments as central to our National Innovation and Science Agenda—the programs it contains, the funds it distributes to help commercialisation and the reforms it has made to turbocharge our start-up sector are all great, but what is especially exciting about this government's innovation agenda is that, for the first time in many years, it puts the concept of innovation, of start-ups, back at the top of the national conversation. It has caused so many Australians to sit up, take notice and think about that little business idea that they have had niggling away in the back of their minds—that great app, that great commercial idea, that interesting thing that they have been sitting on. It has incentivised them to think about it more and, hopefully, to get out and try to make something of it in an enterprising way—to risk their ideas, to risk failure and to take our country into the future.
I will turn now to the specific aspects of this bill. This bill contains two schedules. The first schedule of this bill is about access to company losses. This measure will relax the small-business test for accessing past years' losses as current year tax deductions and introduce a new similar-business test. The new law will allow access to past year losses where a company maintains the same business but also enters into new business or transaction types. Additionally, that similar-business test will be introduced so businesses can access losses where a business conducts similar activities to that operating when the change in ownership occurred.
The second schedule of this bill is about the self-assessment of the effective life of depreciable intangible assets, and this is quite important. This measure provides taxpayers with a new option to self-assess the taxable effective life of intellectual property and other intangible assets with a statutory effective life. While the taxpayer still has the option to depreciate the asset according to the statutory depreciation schedules, self-assessment will better align the depreciation life with the actual number of years that an asset provides an economic benefit to the business. That is going to lead to better economic decision-making.
The new law also allows the taxpayer to recalculate the effective life in the later income years, if that effective life the taxpayer has been using is no longer accurate such as changed circumstances relating to that asset's use. These amendments are necessary, because of changes in the global economy. We are talking globalisation, digitalisation, trends and forces which Australia cannot and should not attempt to hold back. This is about updating our regulatory environment so that our local businesses can remain as competitive and flexible as they need to be. These trends have elevated the importance of intellectual property and other intangible assets. Brands matter. IP matters. The current taxation arrangements for these assets might distort the investment and the holding of intangibles in Australia, and hinder Australia's competitiveness as a place to do business.
Unlike tangible assets, currently, depreciable assets cannot be self-assessed to bring their tax life into line with their economic life. The statutory effective lives of these assets might not reflect the period of time that the asset really is providing use to the taxpayer. One example is that for software, typically covered by copyright, a depreciation life currently applies of 25 years, and so the mismatch of effective and depreciable life can lead to decisions being made for tax purposes rather than for commercial purposes—the sorts of reasons that will lead to more efficient outcomes, if we can allow that to happen.
The current treatment of various intangible assets and complex depreciation rules is discouraging the holding of these sorts of intangible assets in Australia. Not being able to properly depreciate what are potentially very large investments in these assets is a brake on us having a more entrepreneurial business culture in Australia. And so we are trying to provide flexibility to taxpayers in how they can depreciate these sorts of assets. We are encouraging innovation. We are encouraging the expansion of businesses, particularly for start-up enterprises, in line with our National Innovation and Science Agenda.
As I said, this is another key plank of this government's plan for jobs and growth. As I have said, it sits very comfortably side by side with our innovation agenda. It sits very comfortably beside our multinational tax avoidance laws and it certainly sits very comfortably side by side with this government's enterprise tax cuts.
I want to focus on those tax cuts just for a moment while I have the opportunity. We will all remember some of these great quotes. Here is one:
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.
That is what the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said in March 2012 when he was in government.
Here is another quote:
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages—
another quote from the opposition leader in 2011.
You see, it used to be for a very long time a bipartisan position in this parliament that we all aspired to cut Australia's corporate tax rate. The current shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen knows it. He said:
… Keating knew that the corporate tax rate needed to be cut to make Australia competitive, that capital and investment would flow to tax-competitive nations and that this was an important job-creation move. Today capital is even more mobile than it was then and it is important that our corporate tax rate is competitive.
I could keep throwing quotes out there: Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again, Latham, Crean, Beazley, Keating, Hawke—the list goes on. They all agreed. Even the member for Lilley, who is sadly overseas at the moment, promised to cut the corporate tax rate—although, admittedly, he promised it around the time that he also promised this country four economic surpluses that never quite eventuated either. The point is that some of the most eloquent arguments that have been made in this place for cutting taxes in the way that the government just has were made consistently over all of those years by the Labor Party, but they have now walked away from that consistent legacy spanning decades. I think it is really important for us to reflect not only on the motives of an opposition leader who would say one thing when they were a minister with real responsibility and another thing when they are then in opposition and presumably digging for votes. I think it is important for us to reflect on the significance—what it really means—when one of Australia's major political parties just decide to crab-walk away from what has been a longstanding and bipartisan principle. They are walking away from what has always been a key plank of Australia's economic plan, a bipartisan key plank. They have already walked towards populism and the sort of class warfare politics that was supposed to be eradicated when the Labor Party reformed itself in the eighties and tried to make itself fit for office again.
We all paid close attention, I am sure, to the words and the language used by members opposite when they talked about tax in the debate that this parliament has just had. The catchcry was '$50 billion of handouts to big business and multinationals'. Those were the words they used. Of course, now that the debate has been going on for a little while, they have upped that amount to about $60 billion, counting over the forward 10 years, and they continue to roll that crazy phrase out. I think they even did it in question time today. So I am happy to once again rise and really bust the sensationalist lines that the opposition has been using with respect to tax reform.
I can break the silly phrase down word by word and expose the mistruths behind it. First and foremost let us take that term 'handouts'. As I said, I come from a small-business family. Tax cuts are not handouts. It is not a handout to let hardworking small-business owners out there keep more of their own hard-earned money. It is not a handout; it is their own money. In relation to that $50 billion, or now $60 billion, claim that they are using, as I mentioned, they are using the 10 years of budgetary impacts, but let us talk about what it really means. We are achieving this for small businesses—and small businesses only, I should add, growing to medium businesses and aspirationally, hopefully, to all businesses. But what we have legislated in this parliament is for small and medium businesses only—for them to get to keep about $1.6 billion of their own money in this financial year. We have achieved small businesses keeping $2.3 billion of their own money in 2017-18. That rises to $2½ billion, approximately, in 2018-19 and then to $2.8 billion in 2019-20 and so on.
Just in passing, I might mention—in despair, I suppose—how easily the word 'billion' rolls off the tongues of Labor politicians these days. When I first started paying attention to politics, many, many years ago, there would be an audible hush and amazement if any government programs involved amounts of the magnitude that they talk about. Now—thanks, I suppose, to that terrible legacy that was left behind after those Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years—Labor do not even blink about $1 billion or $1 billion there. I fear that they have even made the punters out there as numb to the significance of $1 billion as they are themselves.
But back to dispelling that line: I mentioned that the tax cuts that this government has managed to achieve are not going to big businesses and multinationals; they are going to small businesses. I am very proud to say that, given my small-business background. They are only going to small businesses this year and next year and for the whole term of this parliament. As I said, we do want to legislate a longer term plan that would let the entire economy benefit from better competitiveness. Over time, we would seek to bring all of the remaining medium and then large businesses into the fold too. That used to be the bipartisan aspiration of this place, after all. I can tell you certainly that the people of Brisbane who work or want to work in medium and big businesses also deserve more hours, more jobs, more opportunities and more opportunities for promotion.
Of course it goes without saying that everybody on this side of the House would love to turn all of our small businesses into big businesses over that sort of time frame. But if Labor does not like that approach, that is really easy. There are going to be two elections between now and when any tax cuts could be achieved for big businesses. If they are so sure of their own position, they can take a policy to either or both of those elections. They can make it their policy position maybe to increase taxes again for small and medium businesses, which I presume is now their position, or they can get in there and make the roll back complete, I suppose. They have been through roll-back policies in the past. It did not work particularly well for them then and I do not think it would work particularly well for them in the future. That, I suppose, would be a contribution that they could make and it would certainly be better than just mouthing repeatedly the words 'trickle-down economics'. It is not trickle-down economics to give assistance directly to small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the base of our economy; it is precisely the opposite of trickle-down.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (19:11): It is a big night in football tonight, as the member for Shortland spoke about earlier today in his 90-second statement. It was a very good 90-second statement, even though the wrong side won last time. It is a big night in football tonight. I will be hugely disappointed, if you do not know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, that it is State of Origin.
Mr Conroy: Who's he going for? He's on the other side of the border.
Mr HOWARTH: He is going for Queensland, mate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): Blues. I am the right side of the border, Member for Shortland.
Mr HOWARTH: Everyone knows we are great at footy, but did you know that it was a couple of Aussie blokes that codified a kicking-ball game? Way back in 1858, Aussie Rules football was born when Tom Will and Henry Harrison nutted out 10 rules which formed the basis of AFL, and predated those of other kicking-ball sports like gridiron and soccer. From the world's first torpedo to the first electric drill to the electric pacemaker, the Hills hoist, the Victa mower and Mortein, these are all great Aussie inventions. We are definitely a talented lot here in Australia. But ideas are easy. Making them work, taking an idea and turning it into a viable business is something altogether different.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017 is yet another way the federal government is backing Australians. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said earlier this week that she found it confronting to read a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report that warned that Australia, currently ranked the 13th largest economy, would be lucky to remain in the top 30 countries by 2050—me too, this is definitely confronting. The opposition may be happy to remain entrenched in the past, but the federal government is committed to ensuring we move with the times. We know government does not create jobs; businesses do. That is why we will throw our weight behind them every day of the week. The treasury laws amendment bill has a couple of schedules. Schedule 1 increases access to losses. Schedule 2 is a self-assessment of the effective life of an intangible depreciable asset of acquired intellectual property. We all understand very well how depreciation works, especially with access for those businesses with up to $10 million in turnover with the instant asset tax write-off that they can all take advantage of before 30 June this year as well as next year. This bill also allows acquired intellectual property to be able to depreciate those costs as well. At the moment, depreciation is limited under the act to certain years. But the company has borne the cost of buying that intellectual property. They should be able to depreciate it more quickly or over a longer time, if required. Copyright software, for example, can be depreciated over 25 years, but that seems like quite a long time. If they need to depreciate that more quickly, they should be able to. In countries like the USA and the United Kingdom they are able to.
I think of local businesses that I have had a bit of experience with up in Brisbane—companies like Tanda. About five years ago, a group of young university students started the company, which is now turning over in excess of $2 million a year. This would enable them to make their business worthwhile, with some of the products that they sell and some of the intellectual property that they have. I mentioned before the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers: in a global economy, it is really important that Australia remains cutting-edge and a really attractive place to invest. That is very important, and we need to do everything that we can to enable companies to do that.
In a global environment, it is necessary to make these changes. Assets covered would include things like a standard patent; an innovation patent; a petty patent; a registered design copyright, except copyright in film; a licence, except one relating to a copyright in in-house software; all in-house software; a spectrum licence; a datacasting transmitter licence; or a telecommunication site access right. Those are some of the items that this will cover. What will it cost? The impact is not huge. It was announced in the 2015 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that the measure was estimated to cost $80 million over the then forward estimates. But I say to those opposite: do not look upon every business as wanting to rip off the taxpayer, wanting to somehow move away from that. There are a lot of businesses that pay legitimate tax and that do the right thing, and we see that on a daily basis, which is really important. Considering that most people are employed in the private sector, it is very important.
The coalition government has a solid plan which will ease the pressure on Australian families and will protect businesses and those that they employ. Our plan will ensure we do not lumber our children with the burden of the opposition's fiscal ineptitude. Our plan is built on careful and considered analysis of our position and on sound, strategic planning that will shore up the future of this great nation, Australia. It supports and advances some of our best and our brightest.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:17): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017. A little over 75 years ago—in fact, on 22 May—Sir Robert Menzies gave his famous 'The Forgotten People' speech. We need to put that speech and the messages in that speech into some context. It was only earlier that year, in February, that Singapore had fallen. Darwin had been attacked. The speech was given two weeks after the indecisive Battle of the Coral Sea. At the time the speech was given, the Japanese were planning an attack on Sydney Harbour. That is the historical background that these magnificent words of the 'forgotten people' speech were made. Sir Robert Menzies finished with the words—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: I see the member for Shortland is sitting at the table, and I hope that he listens and might learn something from these words. Sir Robert Menzies, to finish his speech, said:
Individual enterprise must drive us forward.
And he concluded with this last paragraph:
… what really happens to us will depend on how many people we have who are of the great and sober and dynamic middle-class—the strivers, the planners, the ambitious ones. We shall destroy them at our peril.
That is a warning that we all must be constantly aware of. Yet, sadly, we have seen in this parliament one side of the House determined to make it harder and harder for those strivers and planners—those who are prepared to take the risks, those who will drive our economy forward. Everything the Labor Party does drives those people out of business and destroys them. What they don't understand is the importance of incentives in the economy.
There are three dangerous factors, and the first is our nation's corporate tax rate. We simply have to have an internationally competitive corporate tax rate. We have had that in the past and wise leaders like Peter Costello understood that when he reduced Australia's corporate tax rate from 36 per cent down to 30 per cent back in the year 2000. Previous to that, even Paul Keating understood the importance of having an internationally competitive tax rate. As other members have noticed, previously Labor members understood and agreed with our proposition.
We face an international environment today where our major competitors have understood this and have lowered their corporate rate of tax. We see that the UK has plans to lower their corporate tax rate to 20 per cent and reduce it even further, because they understand that, if you lower that corporate rate of tax, you attract investment, you end up with more jobs and, at the end of the day, you end up with more government revenue. It is exactly the same in the USA, where President Trump has promised to reduce their corporate tax rate to 15 per cent. We have seen our Kiwi cousins over the ditch reduce their corporate tax rate to 28½ per cent. New Zealand is an interesting example to learn from. They lowered their corporate rate of tax—and guess what happened to taxation revenue? It was not a giveaway to big business, as members of the opposition like to say. At the lower rate of tax, New Zealand actually got more government revenue.
We do not have to look as far as New Zealand, we only have to look at our own history and we see that every single time from Paul Keating's time when he lowered the corporate rate of tax to increase our international competitiveness to Peter Costello's decision, we got more revenue flowing into the government. We grew the size of the economic pie. We created more jobs, we created more wealth, we created more prosperity. As a government, we had more revenue flowing in to pay for all the social service programs that all of us so desperately want to provide. Knowing the importance and knowing the history, we still have the Labor Party trying to block reductions in the corporate rate of tax. I would like to ask members of the Labor Party: how do they think our nation is going to compete in the years ahead if we are stuck with a 30 per cent rate of corporate tax and the US is at 15 per cent? What damage will that do to our economy?
The second important thing that we must look at is the highest rates of the personal marginal tax rate. If the Labor Party had their way, they would set the highest rate of personal marginal tax rate at 49½ per cent—effectively 50 per cent. What that would mean is that, when someone reached $180,000, if they decide that they want to take a bit more of a risk or if they want to work longer hours or if they want to try a new business idea, the government would take half of whatever income they earned. If they go and spend the half that is left, another 10 per cent would come out in GST. That becomes a disincentive for those strivers, those planners, those ambitious ones whom, as Sir Robert Menzies advised, we must always strive to protect.
There is also the issue of the international competitiveness of our highest personal rate of marginal tax. If one of the countless bright young ambitious Australians that we have went to Singapore, they would pay a personal rate of tax of around 15 or 17 per cent, yet in Australia it is effectively 50 per cent. How many great young Australians will take the opportunity to move overseas?
The third area that threatens to undermine those strivers, planners and ambitious ones is the cost of energy in this nation. It used to be our nation's competitive advantage. We have the coal-fired power plant right next to the coalfields close to the transmission grid close to the city so we in Australia can generate electricity cheaper than anywhere else in the world. That underwrote thousands and thousands of jobs—thousands of jobs in our aluminium industry and in countless other industries. That was our nation's competitive advantage.
Like in life, if you get a competitive advantage, you guard the thing with your life. If you are running a business or a corporation and you are able to develop a competitive advantage, you fight every single day to maintain it. Yet we have seen members of the Labor Party prepared to surrender our nation's competitive advantage purely on an ideological basis. They like the look of wind turbines. They think the wind turbines are wonderful. They very well may be and some people may like them, but they are undermining our nation's competitive advantage. They are destroying jobs today. They are white-anting our nation's economy.
We have seen the evidence from South Australia. We have seen how the South Australian Labor government have almost destroyed their economy. I see the member for Hindmarsh over there. He must apologise. He must see the pain that it is causing constituents in his electorate and he must see the pain it is causing industry. Yet where is the highest unemployment in the nation? South Australia. What do the Labor Party want to do? They want to copy exactly Labor's 50 per cent renewable energy target. You could not think of a policy that could damage our nation's competitiveness.
In a very small way this bill is important, because it helps those strivers, planners and ambitious ones. We understand and we want to give them every encouragement to go out into the marketplace, risk their capital and test their ideas. We know that most of them will eventually fail—that is the reality—but we need to give them the incentive to get out there and give it a go. If we fail to do so, we will simply go backwards as a nation.
Let us look at the measures in this bill. Firstly, schedule 1 increases access to losses. This measure was announced as part of the government's National Innovation and Science Agenda. It will relax the same-business test for assessing prior year company losses to other financial years and introduce a similar-business test. We want to encourage businesses to go out and try new ideas. If they try them and incur a loss, which many of them will do when they are experimenting, we want them to be able to carry that forward under the same business if they are doing something similar in the same business. That is a very simple thing.
In today's economy, when innovation is moving quickly and when we are seeing companies needing to be agile, mobile and able to change track quickly, we need to have the same-business test changed to a similar-business test. It may be only a few words, but it is a very important amendment because it allows the operation of the same-business test and allows loss-making entities to seek out new capital and new opportunities to, hopefully, eventually return to profitability. It proposes two elements.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Global Security
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (19:30): This week we witnessed the fourth terrorist attack in the United Kingdom in as many months. As Muslim worshippers were leaving a gathering to celebrate the breaking of the Ramadan fast in Finsbury Park in London's north, a father-of-four from Wales named Darren Osborne ploughed into the crowd.
One person has so far been confirmed as killed, although it is not clear he was killed as a result of the attack. Ironically, some of the crowd had been tending to him when he had collapsed earlier, putting them in the way of the attacker. Eight people were seriously injured. These were ordinary, peaceful Londoners coming together in prayer. They were exercising their freedom to worship and to congregate—a vital part of British democracy. The attack on them was an act of terrorism. There is no question about this. Terrorism is an act of violence committed with a political motive—and this is exactly what this was.
As the General Secretary of Finsbury Park Mosque said just 48 hours before the attack, referring to both Islamist and anti-Islamist extremists:
Both extremists do not represent us, do not represent our communities, do not represent our faiths. They are a tiny minority, a bunch of murderers who only represent hatred, division and racism.
We have reached a worrying point in our ongoing battle against terrorism. We have reached a point where hate breeds hate, and terror breeds terror; and where an attack by an Islamist terrorist at London Bridge has given rise to harming peaceful Muslims, who had nothing to do with that attack.
Also this week, a young Muslim girl walking to mosque with her friends, 17-year-old Nabra Hassanen, was found dead in a pond in Virginia. In Portland in May, two people were killed while bravely trying to defend Muslim women from verbal attack. It is a worrying trend.
We must also be on our guard here in Australia. And a particular duty falls upon us, as politicians in concert with other public figures and commentators, to continue speaking the language of peace and not division when it comes to terrorism. It is why I thought it was so important to defend the comments of Duncan Lewis, the Director-General of ASIO, a few weeks back. In response to clumsy attempts by Senator Pauline Hanson to blame Muslims and refugees for terrorism in this country, Mr Lewis was firm: he made clear that ASIO is not interested in religion; it is interested in individuals with the capacity to commit violent acts.
It is also why I am so proud that Labor this week has decided to oppose changes to citizenship laws proposed by this Parliament's divider-in-chief, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. These changes revived some of the worst proposals from the Abbott era and also some of the worst messaging of that era. Speaking of 'Australian values and 'Australian patriots' reminds me very forcefully of the sorry days of 'Team Australia'. As warm as that phrase might sound, it had nothing to do with togetherness or teamwork.
Former Prime Minister Abbott thought he could bolster his own political standing by turning people against each other and making enemies of fellow Australians. He chose to promote a kind of battle mentality of 'us versus other'. And it did not work. Australians rejected that kind of talk, and they ultimately rejected him. The current Prime Minister should remember that.
We must work hard, now, to stop the kind of contagion we have seen in the United Kingdom from happening here. If we speak the language of blame, if we seek to point fingers where it is not deserved, then we will create the kind of division in our society which can prove to be very dangerous.
I am sick of hearing talk that we should 'get real' on the threat of Islamist terrorism. Do people who say this seriously think there is no awareness of the threats Australia faces? The threat is all too real. It is just that wiser heads than they realise how important tone of speech and words can be in combating division and the spread of hate. We should not listen to them. In the face of pressure, we must continue to speak the language of togetherness and harmony—for all our sakes.
Energy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (19:35): Tonight I would like to share with the House some great news. There is a report in today's Australian by Matt Chambers, the resources reporter, under the headline 'Coal can't compete with renewables'. It quotes the chief of AGL Energy—the same company that has just put in a 20 per cent price increase for their New South Wales customers—and says:
AGL Energy chief …, who runs one of the nation's biggest coal-fired power businesses, says coal cannot compete with renewables, where prices are falling and which he sees dominating baseload power.
It quotes him as saying:
"Technology is driving this — we don't see any baseload other than renewables."
… … …
"You'll hear people say, 'no coal can compete'," …
"But I've looked at the numbers and come to decisions (that) are going to direct billions of dollars of investment. I've looked at it pretty hard."
This is wonderful news, because what that means, if coal truly cannot compete with renewables, is that we can simply finish the renewable energy target today. We do not need it. If renewables are truly cheaper, why do we need to subsidise them? We can cut all the subsidies back to zero. We can finish the subsidised feed-in tariffs. We can abandon any thought of carbon taxes in the future because of this wonderful news. The Finkel report, because of this announcement by AGL, is now completely redundant, because renewables, according to AGL, are cheaper than coal, and coal cannot compete.
If we do a reverse auction to get more power in the grid to address the shortages that we are likely to have in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria this summer, AGL should be all in favour of that, because that reverse auction would be won by renewables with storage. It is also great news for Australia's international competitiveness, because we see around the world they are still building something like 1,000 coal-fired power stations. These nations are making investments that are wasting billions and billions of their capital. This will put Australia at a great competitive advantage.
On the Paris Agreement, we can go back to Paris being known as the city of love. But it may be bad news for the Iranians, because, under the Paris Agreement, their cuts to emissions were based on them receiving international support of US$35 billion. The money that we would have had to tip into that UN climate fund will no longer have to be part of the US$35 billion that the Iranians want.
The Americans are also wasting their valuable capital. We see in the report that, in the US, on the latest figures, year to date, their coal production has increased 17.6 per cent. This is a mal-investment in the US. And their coal consumption, on a year-to-year basis has increased five per cent on the latest figures. So there is more and more wonderful news in the short term.
AGL have seen their share price, their market capitalisation, increase about $7 billion or $8 billion over the last two years. If now coal can no longer compete with renewables, perhaps they can pay back to the government all the money that they are receiving under the renewable energy target, from the RETs. They could even perhaps donate it to charity, because it is clear from the statement of their chief executive that they no longer need those generous subsidies that the government gives.
But it may only be short-term good news, because our nation's competitive advantage for decades has been in low-cost coal-fired power stations. If it is true that coal is no longer competitive with renewables, and the renewables that we are talking about are Chinese solar panels and Chinese wind farms, our nation no longer has an advantage in energy. It no longer has a competitive advantage, because every nation is free to buy those same solar panels. So we know the future—that we can simply cancel the renewable energy target today based on that announcement— (Time expired)
Hindmarsh Electorate: Aged Care
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (19:40): I rise to speak about a very important issue in my electorate and in electorates all over Australia. My electorate is one of the oldest electorates in the country; something like 18 per cent of the entire electorate is 65 and over. Therefore aged care issues—issues that deal with home care packages, retirement homes, nursing homes—have a big impact in my electorate. The length of time that older Australians are waiting for home care packages is appalling at the moment. I have had many, many constituents phoning and coming to see me and say that they have applied for aged-care packages, they have been assessed by the proper authorities and have been waiting for many months and, in some cases, up to two years.
Last week I was on my local radio station, 5AA, talking about this issue and trying to highlight it. People called into my office, and I now have whole list of people. For example, Angela from Morphettville was assessed in January; she was approved in February for a level 4 home package, but all they could give her was a level 2. When you are assessed for level 4, it means there are certain needs you have, but all they could give her was a level 2. Another example is Eugene who has been waiting for two years. He was assessed as a level 3 but his daughter had to resign from work to stay home and care for him. Another one who came to see me was Lorna and she was approved for level 4 care but has been waiting for a number of months. We wrote to My Aged Care requesting priority for this woman.
Another was Ruth who was assessed three years ago and was reassessed in November last year due to the deterioration of her state. Another assessment will be made in the next week or so. She was on a level 3 and thinks she should be assessed as a level 4. It has been three years, and her daughter has been caring for her. Norma from Largs Bay, just outside my electorate in the electorate of Port Adelaide, has been receiving level 2 but she was approved for level 4 in March. She has been advised that she needs to be reassessed because the system has changed since March. Hazel arranged for an ACAT assessment in June 2016 and was approved for a level 4. She waited for nine months for the service, but since April has only been receiving two hours of cleaning a week. Her husband looks after her; they are emotionally drained and frustrated.
The government is happy to hand out $65 billion tax cut to our country's richest people, yet can you imagine how much $65 billion can buy for aged-care packages to assist these people. In many cases these people have worked all their lives, paid their taxes, contributed to our economy. As members of parliament and legislators, we should be doing all we can to assist these people. Pensioners and older Australians keep on getting slogged, and it is just not fair. As I said, older Australians are already made to feel like a burden to our society when they have to apply for packages and are basically told there is nothing there for them. We should be doing all we can to support them to live independent, fulfilling lives at home for as long as possible. That is the message we have been hearing from the government and from our side, but, unfortunately, the funding is not there. We did not see a single cent in the last budget allocated towards more packages and better aged care. We have only heard about the pension cuts, people being a lot older before they can retire and cutting the pensions of people who live overseas.
Since 27 February, Home Care Packages are being allocated directly to individuals, not to aged-care providers. That is fine, but people are now assessed as eligible for a certain level of package, and then they go into a national queue. That is where the wait is. They have to wait for someone to vacate that queue—perhaps through a whole range of issues—before they are allocated that package. In reality, people are waiting months and months for packages. The people who I just gave examples of are waiting up to two years, and that is not good enough—two years for a pensioner who has contributed, paid their taxes and worked all their lives. (Time expired)
Sciacca, Hon. Concetto Antonio, AO
Bowman Electorate: Schools
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (19:45): I rise to recognise the passing of the Hon. Con Sciacca this afternoon. He will be close to many of us in this chamber. He had a long battle with cancer which came to an end today. There will be many friends of Con who will be looking forward to an opportunity to share stories about the amazing impact that he had in this building. He was like a father to many in my electorate. He was the traditional politician who was public property to everyone. He changed the lives of school students, adolescents struggling with personal challenges. He gave people a start. He found jobs for people who needed them. Many people will be getting together in the coming days to tell stories about the significant life, the full life, led by Con Sciacca.
I speak today about schools in Redlands. For a long time now, we have known that midyear means the opening of report cards. Many parents around the country will be opening report cards tonight—the shock, excitement, thrill, exhilaration and celebration of seeing As, Bs and Cs, and the immense amount of work that is done by students around this country to achieve those results.
But it is still a great challenge for us to identify gain over time for students. For too long, we have been emphasising snapshots of achievement instead of looking at the gain and the tracking over time. This means that a student from a poor household who makes significant improvement is not often recognised, because we just take a snapshot of where they ended up at the end of the year.
I want to go to the particular effort of identifying schools in my electorate that went beyond what was predicted. These are the schools that had a gain that cannot be explained by normal movement between years. I call it impact. One of the things that I would like to do in my public life is to change the conversation around school achievement from one of just attainment—of schools simply recruiting smarter kids and calling themselves a more successful school—to identifying where students started from and the journey that we took them on in the educational process. Schools in my electorate have done that.
From the ACARA website, we have looked at the 2015 year 5 NAPLAN and looked at the tracking between year 3 and year 5. Of course, these students are now off in high school, but no-one has recognised that, back in 2015, when they sat NAPLAN, there were schools that went over and above the normal progression you would expect between similar schools of social and educational similarity. A school like Vienna Woods has been recognised by ACARA but not in the mainstream press.
Vienna Woods, a tiny school in the most disadvantaged part of my electorate, achieved a 28-point NAPLAN gain relative to similar schools over that two-year period between years 3 and 5. We cannot look at year 7, because they are now in high school. Vienna Woods was the most significant change, followed by Capalaba at 23 NAPLAN points, Cleveland State School at 22 and Redlands College, an independent school in my electorate, at 22 also. In numeracy: Vienna Woods, again, a 24-NAPLAN-point improvement in 2015; Capalaba State College, 20 points; and Thornlands, 19 points. These schools are never recognised. They come from some of the tougher parts of my city. We are too often celebrating the high ATAR scores without recognising the gains achieved over time. Put together in that 2015 cohort, Vienna Woods, Capalaba, Cleveland and Thornlands represent outstanding achievement in that year.
Move now to 2016, where people were now identifying NAPLAN as being a significant marker of school achievement. Victoria Point primary had a 40-NAPLAN-point achievement relative to similar schools over time. They are moving faster. They are progressing their students even more quickly. Redlands College had 36 for literacy. Bay View had 31, Ormiston College had 29, St Rita's had 23 and St Anthony's had 20. Those last two schools are Catholic education schools that devoted themselves to better tracking of NAPLAN outcomes and found themselves, for the first time, in the top grade of schools around gain. I also want to recognise, in numeracy, Macleay Island, which had a 51-point gain, and Ormiston college, which had a 20-point gain.
As I conclude, I just want to recognise the change agents in my city. These are the teachers who changed lives for the better. In first place are the primary school teachers—the year 3 teachers in 2014 and the year 4 teachers in 2015—at Macleay Island who achieved a 28-point gain. Second were Victoria Point and Redlands College in a tie. In fourth place was Vienna Woods. In fifth place was Ormiston college. In sixth place was Bay View. Seventh was Capalaba college. Eighth was Cleveland primary school. Ninth was St Anthony's. Tenth was Thornlands. The top 10 change agents—those primary schools—are recognised here tonight in the nation's parliament.
Sciacca, Hon. Concetto Antonio, AO
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (19:50): Tonight, I want to recognise the life of the friend of mine, Con Sciacca AO. Con, our thoughts and prayers are with your wife, Karen, your daughter, Zina, your granddaughter, Grace, and your step-sons, Daniel and Nicholas, and also Peter Costantini, Santo Santoro, Larry Anthony and the whole SAS group—his friends. The fact that Con had friends across both sides of the chamber and could go into business with them is an indication of the kind of quality of a man he was.
Con was a true friend to many people. He was an outstanding minister in the Keating government. He actually initiated the Australian Remembers campaign to honour the sacrifice and the courage of Australian diggers—people who served in World War II. It is not, I do not think, blasphemous or sacrilegious in any way to say that Australia remembers him. We will remember him. On the Labor side, we have lost a mentor. He was a great help to me personally. He was a great friend. He had his rosary beads and his prayer book when I met with him for coffee from time to time as he struggled with the terrible illness that got him in the end. He had run the race. He had kept the faith to the very end. He probably had the best thumbed prayer book I have ever seen in my life. He had his many times in surgery and convalescence. But he is remembered fondly by so many.
Con helped me enormously. I remember in 2004, when the redistribution actually changed his seat and he ended up running for Bonner, he came out to the Ipswich RSL. Although he was a Labor bloke and had come from a Sicilian background, he was like a rock star at the Ipswich RSL. The veterans loved him because he was such a larger-than-life character. You would see him up there at Adelaide Street—he established Sciacca Lawyers. They have been operating for 40 years in Brisbane. I was a senior partner of a Brisbane CBD law firm, so our firms had a bit to do with each other over time. Their firm was one that always fought for the rights of people at work—personal injuries, actions, standing up for people who were victims in the workplace and people who were injured in car accidents and the like. You always knew that you could get a fair deal with Sciacca Lawyers. Con presided over them like not just the monarch but the prime minister as well. Con would be there with his cigar, sitting out the back up there in Adelaide Street in Brisbane and dispensing sage advice. People came to him for that—for his friendship and his advice. He was a highly successful businessmen. I think he would have made a fantastic ambassador, can I just say. I wish he had been appointed as an ambassador by any Australia government.
Con had such diverse interests and friendships across so many people. When they opened the new building up there, there were people from Labor and LNP backgrounds. It was like a coming together. It was such bipartisan joy and affection. He gave me such incredible advice and helped me so much as I made the transition from candidate and campaigner into federal member—how to transition and get out of my law practice. He gave me advice in relation to those issues, how to handle that process and how to deal with your business partners and the like. I will never forget that. I will never forget his graciousness and his friendship, the time he offered to me personally and the friendship he did give when I found that all very time consuming. Also, there was the advice he gave me about campaigning. It is often forgotten that Con ran a number of campaigns and got beaten. He knew how to take losses and he knew how to win.
Con ran a number of times before he got into parliament and he was involved in lots of campaigns. His work and his deep affection for this country can never be surpassed. He had tremendous love for his family, and his faith was just so dear to him. I think his life shows what migration has done for this country and how a young guy like Con could grow up here, in this country, from the background he came from—a tough background—and excel with resilience, good humour, affection, faith and championing the Labor cause. He is one of the lions of the Labor movement and the Labor party in Queensland. Vale, Con Sciacca, a great friend to me personally.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Capricornia, I want to say to the House, I am sad to hear the news from the members for Bowman and Blair. Many years ago in another capacity, I got to know Con. He was always cheerful, always passionate. He was a very decent human being, and I am saddened to hear that news tonight.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (19:55): While thousands of kilometres apart, the people of Central Queensland felt a sense of kinship with Whyalla, all thanks to an Indian company. Earlier this month, Adani announced that the steel required to build the Carmichael rail line will come from Whyalla. And I hope the people of Whyalla could hear the cheers from Rockhampton, the cheers from Middlemount and the cheers from Nebo. I hope they could hear the cheers from every mining town in Australia—towns where the hard earned sweat of remote and struggling families proffer state budgets through royalties; towns where basic services taken for granted in cities are hard to come by and often at a greater cost.
It is the people of these towns who cheered for Whyalla. The cheers have drowned out the cries of those in inner city suburbs who enjoy the fruits of regional Australia's labour. They get built pretty things and get to go to their secure jobs on efficient public transport. They come home and pour a nice glass of wine, which also comes from the work of regional Australia. They jump on their tablet also assembled from the resources of regional Australia and begin their keyboard rant to stop production of all the luxuries they take for granted daily.
They ranted about a quest to supply developing nations with the electricity they use every day. They raved about the coal that would destroy the environment, even though their own lifestyles exist because of it. And when that did not work, they cried foul over a foreign company who was going to steal Australian jobs and rob Australia of a future. They turned Adani into the fruit of all evils.
Well, I am happy to say you were mistaken and you have been proven wrong. You were wrong about Adani's commitment to renewables. You have misled Australians on what this project will do to the Great Barrier Reef. You were wrong about who they were going to employ. And you are wrong about who is going to benefit.
The people of Whyalla were not the only winners earlier this month. Adani has also delivered an $82 million contract for Rockhampton. Rockhampton company Austrak will fill a contract worth more than $82 million to supply concrete sleepers to Adani Australia for the Carmichael mine project's rail line. The deal will see Austrak triple its workforce to more than 80 and generate up to 30 supply chain jobs, and provide job security for the two-year life of the contract.
Adani promised that regional Queenslanders would benefit from the project and they have now proven that they honour their promises and care about regional Australia. It is a sad state of affairs when a foreign company does more for regional workers than the supposed party of the workers. The federal coalition has consistently advocated for the Carmichael mine and the 388-kilometre km rail line that will deliver much needed jobs for Central Queensland.
We consistently spoke to the truth and the facts. Labor, the Greens and the fearmongering GetUp speculated, cajoled and bullied. The fact is that the Carmichael mine is 300 kilometres inland in a dry, dusty part of Queensland. It is one of a number of potential mines in this country that has the capacity to employ thousands of Australians.
Our government has put in place 36 of the strictest environmental conditions. We have implemented the recommendations of the independent expert scientific committee which provided advice to the government on the Carmichael mine. We have balanced jobs and investment creation with environmental protection.
While our inner city neighbours may not care for our livelihoods, we will continue to believe in delivering the life you are accustomed to. We know that the export dollars from our labours support the nation's economy. We know that the people outside major cities deserve the prospect of further employment and prosperity. And we know that, if countries like India do not use coal from the Galilee Basin, they are just going to buy it from Indonesia or other places that will get the jobs and the money that would otherwise come to Australia.
I wish to end by thanking my colleagues, particularly those in marginal seats. Thank you for not bowing to pressure to put the hypocrisy of inner-city greens before the needs of regional Australia, and the people in my electorate of Capricornia. (Time expired)
House adjourned at 20:01
NOTICES
Mr Porter: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance, social security, paid parental leave and student assistance, and for related purposes. (Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017)
Mr Fletcher: To present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes. (Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017)
Mrs K. L. Andrews: To present a Bill for an Act to repeal certain obsolete Acts relating to education and training, and for related purposes. (Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017)
Mr McCormack: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the governance, performance and accountability of, and the use and management of resources by, the Commonwealth, Commonwealth entities and Commonwealth companies, and to deal with consequential and transitional matters in connection with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and for other purposes. (Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017)
Mr McCormack: To present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth to abolish statutory bodies, and for other purposes. (Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017)
Mr McCormack to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian War Memorial, Treloar E Large Technology Objects Store Project, Mitchell, ACT.
Mr McCormack to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Explosive Ordnance Logistics Reform Program Project.
Mr McCormack to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: JP2008 Phase 5B2 Wideband Satellite Capability—Satellite Ground Station—East Facilities Project.
Mr McCormack to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: HMAS Cerberus redevelopment, Western Port Bay, Victoria.
Mr McCormack to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: IP Australia Accommodation Project: Building Refresh, Discovery House, Woden, ACT.
Mr Pyne to move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 22 June, 2017.
Mr Champion to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that the Northern Adelaide Irrigation Scheme (NAIS) has the potential to create 3,700 jobs for Northern Adelaide and add more than $500 million a year to the State's economy; and
(2) calls on the Government to immediately commit to provide the $45.6 million in funding required by the South Australian Government for the NAIS to proceed.
Mr Perrett to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that Australia has a significant role in assisting countries to reduce poverty and achieve inclusive prosperity through its international aid;
(2) recognises that:
(a) every year Australian aid improves the lives of millions of people around the globe;
(b) Australia is playing a leading role in international initiatives such as the Asia Pacific Leaders Malaria Alliance; and
(c) Australia has played an important role in having the G20 Health Ministers commit to action on drug-resistant tuberculosis and the World Health Assembly endorsing action to accelerate access to vaccines;
(3) notes that:
(a) while the global community is making progress towards ending poverty, hunger and the worst epidemics, the world is facing multiple challenges of war, poverty, hunger, displaced people and climate change;
(b) in the Asia-Pacific region, 330 million people live in extreme poverty, 1.5 billion people lack access to safe sanitation, and one in 7 people suffer from malnutrition; and
(c) Australia is one of 194 countries which have endorsed the Agenda for Sustainable Development, which sets out 17 goals to eliminate poverty, improve health and achieve inclusive economic and social development; and
(4) calls on the Government to:
(a) set clear long term goals for the Australian aid program, consistent with our interests in supporting sustainable economic development, health security and poverty reduction for countries throughout our region in the forthcoming Foreign Policy White Paper, which has received more than 9,000 public submissions on a range of issues, including our aid commitments;
(b) commit to consideration of increasing Australian aid in real terms in the next four years, to support achieving these goals;
(c) build understanding within the Australian community of the work that has been achieved through Australian aid, to lift our national pride in our contribution to the world; and
(d) expand opportunities for everyday Australians to contribute in practical ways to regional development, through short work parties to exchange agricultural and practical skills in developing countries.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) took the chair at 10:00.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Workplace Relations
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (10:00): This Sunday will be the last Sunday that some workers in Australia receive their full penalty rates. It will be the last Sunday that workers who are already in insecure jobs and, in many cases, already on low wages will keep their full penalty rates—because, of course, this government has not taken the opportunities in recent days, yesterday and again today, to act on this penalty rate cut and do the right thing by those thousands of Australians for whom this weekend will be their last weekend working on full penalty rates. What we have seen from the government, indeed, is a complete disregard and a complete lack of understanding about what these workers go through. They are in insecure work and often on low wages, as I said.
There are tens of thousands of people in my home state of Tasmania who will be affected by this. People in this place would know that Tasmanians are already on some of the lowest wages in Australia. They would also know that this money will be ripped out of local economies. This money will no longer be spent in small businesses in those local economies. Of course, the people earning these penalty rates often spend all of their income. They are 100 per cent consumers because they are low-income earners. Indeed, I have some great organisations and companies and small businesses in my electorate who are refusing to cut their workers' penalty rates, and I want to stand up for them today and congratulate them on their stance, standing up for their workers. Some of the owners of the facilities in my electorate are saying things like: 'You can't put a price on staff loyalty.' An owner of a cafe in Margate in my electorate said:
If someone is prepared to give up their Sunday and relinquish time with their loved ones, we need to compensate them for that.
We are a tightly knit crew and treating people fairly flows through to the service we give our customers.
The public reaction from the community to these owners who are standing up and saying they will not cut their staff's penalty rates has been overwhelming. People are saying it is great to see that small businesses care and that people understand these workers are already often doing it tough and already on low pay. This sends a great message to the local communities and results in the types of reactions that we are getting in Tasmania from those small businesses that are standing up for their workers and saying they will not cut penalty rates, despite the federal government agreeing to this penalty rate cut, despite the federal government not taking the opportunities that were presented in the parliament yesterday and despite one government member finally having the courage of his conviction on this issue because he understands it is going to be a big issue in his electorate. But the government members, on the whole, apart from that one member, continually voted to support cuts to penalty rates, cuts to these workers' take-home pay and cuts to money in their local economies.
Flynn Electorate: Roads
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (10:03): Since becoming the member for the electorate of Flynn in 2010, I have set about achieving clear goals for my time in this place. One of these goals is to drive the improvement of our region's economic roads. To that end, I believe I have been reasonably successful. One hundred and five million dollars has been spent on the Calliope crossroads, with a huge safety benefit to Central Queensland; $65 million on the Capricorn Highway duplication between Gracemere and Rockhampton and raising the level of the road by one metre—it is a flood area; $32 million on the Bajool to Midgee upgrade; $25 million on the Kin Kora intersection, through fifty-fifty funding with the state government; $15 million on six overtaking lanes between Gracemere and Emerald; and $8.5 million on eight bridges across Flynn. I will name just a few more: $20 million for the Phillip Street missing link in Gladstone; Gin Gin north and south and the big dipper have been taken out and improved; Marmor intersection upgraded; a new bridge at Eight Mile Creek South Bajool; and the Benaraby intersection upgrade on the Bruce Highway. I am proud that this has been achieved in the last six years, but there is still more to do.
Unfortunately, that has been placed at risk by the state government, which is hell-bent on pork-barrelling seats in Brisbane. With such an enormous price placed on the Cross River Road, I am concerned that this government will divert funding from the highways and roads in Flynn to the Cross River Rail—$5.4 billion does not simply grow on trees. I challenge the state government to declare where they will get $5.4 billion from without affecting roads in the regional areas, which are economic roads. Will they plunge the state further into debt and still have no infrastructure for our roads in Central Queensland? Will they scrounge every cent out of their road budget to pay for it? Labor has form. Our electricity prices have already risen due to the Queensland government's dodgy accounting, dragging out money and laying on government debt until generators can do nothing but pass it on to customers.
Ergon and Energex will pass back to the government well over $300 million this year. They also gauge money out of port authorities, Queensland Rail and electricity generators. Labor has a history of ignoring regional Queensland. They are happy to spend $5 billion in Brisbane on travel but they will not hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to roads, bridges, rail and dam reconstruction.
Shipbuilding Infrastructure
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (10:06): Barely a day passes in Western Australia when readers of the daily paper are not faced with a full page of Liberal propaganda that is going some significant way to improving the revenue of the West Australian. It started some weeks back with the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, reviving some brilliant eighties retro graphics to convey the assertion that WA Liberal cabinet ministers were actually achieving something for Western Australians. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Bishop, has also authorised a few full page ads and today, the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, has joined in. I look forward to the WA based Minister for Social Services, the member for Pearce, joining the campaign—as he sure needs to, given how precarious his hold is on the seat of Pearce.
Former WA Liberal MLAs, who recently lost their seats in the March state election—and there were many of them—might reasonably ask, 'Where was this Liberal ministerial passion for full page colour campaign ads during the state election?' Where was it? It was nowhere to be seen, but now here we are. The graphics show WA with a big 50 per cent in the middle of the map of Western Australia. It is not 50 per cent of the government commitment and spend of the naval shipbuilding plan they are talking about. That would be $44 billion of the $89 billion. What the map—titled, 'Securing WA's role as a leading shipbuilding state'—and the 50 per cent indicates is that WA is one of two key naval shipbuilding states. Well, what genius comes up with this! They are clearly trying to mislead Western Australians to think that this Liberal government is spending half of its naval shipbuilding money in Western Australia, whereas, in fact, it is just saying we are just one of two places that build ships in this country. I would welcome $44 billion for shipbuilding in Western Australia, but that is not what is happening. None of this stellar Liberal eighties inspired graphics that are strewn through the West Australian newspapers these days can hide the truth. WA gets $3 billion of the $89 billion for the naval shipbuilding plan. That is 3.4 per cent—a long way from 50 per cent. It enables shipbuilding infrastructure. And $100 million of $1.2 billion is about 8.5 per cent.
The $100 million for shipbuilding infrastructure is a case of third time unlucky for WA's naval shipbuilding industry. This naval shipbuilding plan delivers a kick in the guts for industry along the Kwinana strip, which has been the driving force of the Western Australia and economy since the 1950s. It is a kick in the guts for the skilled workers who live in my electorate Brand. The plan has delivered a disappointing rehash of a $100 million announcement for WA shipyard infrastructure. It is a rehash; it was first mentioned in June, then again in March and now there is this plan. These WA Liberal ministers have given up on Western Australia, and Western Australians have given up on them.
Replacement Antarctic Vessel
Mr PASIN (Barker) (10:09): I rise today to speak about the new, world-leading Antarctic icebreaker that will replace the ageing Aurora Australis. The government is investing $1.9 billion to design, build and operate the icebreaker over 30 years. This is the biggest single investment in the history of Australia's Antarctic Program. This icebreaker will enable us to cross thousands of kilometres of the world's stormiest seas, to navigate through the ice barrier, and will allow researchers to live and work for extended periods on the world's coldest, driest and windiest continent. While this new, custom-built icebreaker is not expected to arrive in Australia to its home port of Hobart until mid-2020, the task of deciding a name for the ship is well underway. The 'Name our Icebreaker' competition opened for entries in May this year. The competition invites students in years 5 to 8 across Australia to submit suggestions for the name of this important vessel.
A number of schools in Penola, in my electorate of Barker, are leading the charge to name the ship the John Riddoch Rymill. Penola is the birthplace of Antarctic explorer, John Riddoch Rymill. Born in the homestead on Penola Station in 1905, it was Rymill's ambition from an early age to become a polar explorer. He studied surveying and navigation at the Royal Geographical Society in London; skiing and mountaineering in Switzerland; and sailing in Essex. He went on to study nutrition and cooking in Cambridge, and bookkeeping and anthropology in London, before learning how to fly in Middlesex. He began his first polar exploration as a surveyor and pilot on an Antarctic expedition in 1930. Four years later, in a schooner named the Penola after his birthplace, Rymill set about establishing bases along Graham Land on the west coast. Through this expedition, with an amateur crew, Rymill proved that Graham Land was an extension of the Antarctic continent. Rymill's logistics were innovative. His ground team used huskies to sled over sea ice, supported by air patrols. He also used a motor launch to probe ahead and plot a course for the Penola. The Penola itself deserves considerable mention: the ship covered more than 43,000 kilometres, and did this mostly under sail and through some of the most treacherous waters on earth. This was no mean feat. Rymill is credited with contributing the largest and most accurate surveys of Antarctica of his time, despite his expedition being largely self-funded and operating on one of the most modest budgets for expeditions of its size and duration. The legacy of John Riddoch Rymill is truly one that must be acknowledged. I would like to think that the new icebreaker will see its crew through some equally groundbreaking research—just as Rymill did almost a century before—and how fitting it would be if this vessel was named the John Riddoch Rymill.
Melbourne Electorate: Noncompliant Building Products
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:12): Last week, the world was faced with the news of the devastating fire that swept through the Grenfell Tower in London. At least 79 people were killed, and there may be many more who were trapped in the tower who will never be identified. As we mourn the loss of life and send our support to those people who are grieving the loss of loved ones, we must look to the actions we can take to prevent disasters like this happening in the future here in Australia.
In 2014, a fire swept through and around the Lacrosse building in Docklands, located within my electorate. As with the Grenfell fire, flammable external cladding was found to be a major factor in the fire. Extensive damage was done and hundreds of people were relocated. Fortunately, no lives were lost; but one could easily imagine the result of the fire being worse. In March of this year, a fire occurred in a high-rise public housing tower on Napier Street in Fitzroy, also within in my electorate. This fire also resulted in the evacuation of hundreds of residents and, whilst the fire has not been linked to flammable cladding, residents have expressed strong safety concerns. The fire occurred in the early hours of the morning while residents slept—yet most people in the building heard no fire alarm. Many people were woken up by the smell of smoke or a ringing phone or the courageous actions of neighbours knocking on their doors. People with limited mobility had to be carried down flights of stairs by neighbours. I am concerned that there may be other unsafe buildings in Melbourne and elsewhere that are yet to be identified. Following the Lacrosse fire, the Victorian Building Authority conducted an audit of 175 high-rise buildings in Melbourne and it found that over half of these—51 per cent—had external cladding that did not comply with the regulations.
Safety issues like flammable cladding are putting residents in danger and putting our firefighters in danger. In a submission to the current Senate inquiry on non-conforming building products, the MFB, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, with regard to flammable cladding, stated:
The use of this product in a non-compliant manner means fires are more likely and those fires will spread more rapidly, cause more damage and potentially result in a loss of life.
The submission went on to say:
In some situations the MFB may need to withdraw firefighters from responding to parts of a building where non-compliant products are in use because of a risk to their life.
There are gaps in the current regulations. The Lacrosse building was described last week by the former chief fire officer of the MFB as unsafe, and yet I understand that no significant action has been taken to replace the flammable cladding on this building despite an order being made of the owners' corporation in January 2017 for its removal. Hundreds of residents once again live in this building. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many residents are living in the same unsafe and overcrowded conditions that might have contributed to the 2014 fire. What is the point of government if we cannot ensure that every building that we live in is safe? Whether it is public housing or private housing, whether it is because of materials or because of inadequate procedures, governments must act.
Fairfax Electorate: Rural and Regional Services
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (10:16): While almost seven million Australians live outside large metropolitan areas, of the 20 federal electorates with the lowest household incomes in Australia, 18 are located outside our capital cities. We need real solutions to rural and regional unemployment for most regional centres. Country towns are no longer the robust, almost self-sufficient communities that they once were. Queensland is copping it harder than most. Western and northern Queensland are facing a jobs crisis with unemployment at 10.7 per cent in Townsville and over 12½ per cent in western Queensland, and with youth unemployment almost twice that. The problem in Queensland, of course, is that the Palaszczuk Labor government continues to display total neglect for the vast majority of rural and regional areas of the state and for the people who live there.
Under the strained leadership of Anastacia Palaszczuk and Jackie Trad, virtually all of Queensland beyond inner-city Brisbane was ignored in Labor's recent state budget. Unless you are a member of a Public Service union, one of the urban elite to have benefited from an additional 15,000 new Public Service jobs under Queensland Labor, you hardly rate a mention. There have been significant cuts to agriculture and fisheries. Meanwhile the environment department, based of course in the city of Brisbane, have seen their staff numbers balloon, thanks to a funding increase of almost 40 per cent over a two-year period. You would think that at a time when rural and regional areas are struggling they would invest in infrastructure, but the Palaszczuk government will stubbornly push ahead with their $5.4 billion for only 10 kilometres of inner-city rail running across adjoining electorates held by Jackie Trad and Grace Grace, both of whom are under threat from the Greens. Meanwhile, the North Coast rail duplication plan is on hold. There is absolutely no money put aside to ensure that the rail line is duplicated up to the important regional town of Nambour. Nambour is a town of 17½ thousand people and, since the closure of the Morton Sugar Mill 10 years ago, the town has been struggling. With some downsizing at the hospital and also at the council chambers and with businesses closing, it needs a boost, yet the state Labor government refuses to fund the duplicated rail line. They are holding regional and rural areas in Queensland at ransom because they are threatened by the Greens in inner-city Brisbane. Meanwhile, the rest of Queensland seems to struggle as a result. It is about time they started caring for regional and rural areas.
Lalor Electorate: Citizenship
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:19): The electorate of Lalor is home to many who have come across the seas to join our fabulous community and live and work in our wonderful country. On Saturday, I joined 120 excited people becoming Australian citizens at the Wyndham City Council citizenship ceremony. It is one of the privileges of being the member for Lalor and it is something I do often. These are very moving events. There is joy and pride, and I am always humbled by the courage and optimism of the individuals and families who, like all of us who are not descended from the First Australians, have made the brave decision to leave their homeland and join us here to build their futures. There are always tears and smiles when taking the pledge to Australia and its people. I want to share with my community exactly what that pledge is:
From this time forward … I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
The people who take this pledge on Saturday have all been in Australia for a minimum of four years. They have all completed their citizenship test in English. Speaking English is at the heart of our citizenship test and many I have met who speak English do so at a university level because they are professionals who have been educated to a university level; but many do not have that. I am proud that in Australia we support those people who come in on refugee and humanitarian grounds to reach conversational levels of English to allow them to become citizens in this country, having to pass that test written in English.
I often reflect during those ceremonies about my time in schools teaching English as a second language to the children of refugees and those joining us here on humanitarian grounds, who come from non-English speaking backgrounds and often had very little formal education in their home countries. I think of those students and the way they grabbed those opportunities, and the work that they did in my classroom and classrooms around this country to learn English so that they could make their contribution to this country. After 27 years of teaching, I know how many of those young people are now great contributors to our community and to our economy. They have gone on to become workers in our shops, in our restaurants and in our cafes or to run businesses. Many of them, I know from the days when I taught them, are professionals in the Australian economy. Some are running import and export companies. We cannot underestimate the contribution that new citizens have made to this country over many decades and I would hate to see us limit the opportunities for people to become citizens in the future in this country.
Dunkley Electorate: Mornington Netball Courts
Mr CREWTHER (Dunkley) (10:22): In Dunkley we are so fortunate to have a strong sporting culture and fantastic facilities to help our local sporting clubs thrive. So last Saturday it was my privilege to join Mornington Peninsula Shire Council mayor, Councillor Bev Colomb, Mornington Peninsula Netball Association president Debbie Brown, as well as hundreds of players, parents, committee members and others at Elsie Dorrington Reserve to officially open the new blue, Plexipave resurfaced Mornington netball courts, complete with new competition standard lighting and fencing for all courts. The netball courts now meet Netball Victoria court standards and have been equipped to host night games. This upgrade is due to a $500,000 investment in the project by the federal coalition government. In addition to funds from the Victorian state government, the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and the Mornington Netball Association, it is part of a wider $6-plus million federal government commitment made prior to the federal election last year to support the growth of sport on the Mornington Peninsula, particularly to support young people and to grow women's sport. This package is a fantastic investment in grassroots sport for the region. Netball courts like these are where Australia's future sporting stars are born and allow for our sporting clubs to thrive and expand.
Minister Nash noted that the upgraded sporting facilities will benefit the Mornington community by potentially attracting significant events such as finals and regional sporting events. We know that many sporting champions, including AFL and AFL women's players, league level basketball players and so many others, have grown up with and developed through our local sporting clubs and that having these local facilities is integral to sourcing local talent and helping people on the peninsula achieve their full potential, not to mention the greatly improved safety for users of those netball courts, given the amount of grazes and injuries that occurred on the former gravel courts. The outcome of this project will benefit 15 clubs, including 142 teams and over 1,400 players, as well as thousands of additional local families.
The benefits of this upgrade and the peninsula sports package in total are immense and will not only help promote our local talent to the rest of the country but ensure that sport is something that is fostered and valued within our community. We have seen a huge increase in participation in local sporting clubs, particularly by women recently, so having the best facilities we can for the Mornington netball courts and elsewhere will I hope see participation in all sports across the peninsula increase further. I look forward to seeing our community and the region utilising and enjoying these excellent new courts in Mornington.
Holt Electorate: Young People
Holt Electorate: Mental Health
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:25): I would like to talk about two headspace centres—one in Narre Warren and one in Dandenong—and to pay tribute to the young people of Casey, without whose efforts we would not have had those headspace centres. In 2011 and 2012 in and around my constituency we had what we call a suicide cluster, for want of a better term, of young people who were taking their own lives. The number of people hurting themselves and taking their own lives was of sufficient magnitude that in 2012 we commissioned a summit on youth suicide, which was led by Professor Pat McGorry. Four Corners filmed the summit and broadcast a wonderful program called 'There is no 3G in Heaven', which talked about the individual stories of parents who have lost their children and the impact of youth suicide on parents and families. It was traumatic for everyone who was involved.
The key driver of this, and the people I want to pay tribute to, were the young people from the Casey youth study tour, who drew this to my attention in early 2012. Some of those young people had been friends of those who had taken their own lives, and for those young people, through the auspices of the city of Casey study tour, to come into my office and talk about their individual experiences and talk about the loss of their peers and how that impacted on their lives was an incredible act of bravery, from what I could see. The fact that they wanted something done and their impetus, drive and enthusiasm were the main reasons we had this youth summit in August 2012 and for what it led to. Up until that period of time there were no headspace centres in the midst of this rather awful set of circumstances. As a consequence of their lobbying, there are now two headspace centres. That is overlaid with a youth early psychosis service that is run by Associate Professor Simon Stafrace from The Alfred hospital.
We talk about young people not having a say in politics anymore, not having any influence, but that is not true. Those headspace centres are testament to the young people who worked hard together; lobbied me, respectfully; lobbied others in the city of Casey; and auspiced this youth suicide summit in 2012. So to those young people who may or may not be watching, who think they are powerless and do not have a voice: that is not true. You have a voice, and your voice, particularly in the city of Casey, led to the creation of two headspace centres, and those two headspace centres and the early psychosis centre are saving lives. That is because of you young people and the work that you did to lobby for those services.
Hinkler Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (10:28): It is my great pleasure to rise and actually speak about the coalition government delivering for my electorate. We recently opened a $2.8 million road extension to Kay McDuff Drive—it was officially opened last week—and it is already making a very large difference, particularly for those people travelling around the Shalom College and for heavy vehicles travelling to the industrial part of town. The 450-metre extension provides direct access to the Bundaberg Ring Road for more than 320 heavy vehicles using the road daily. The new link has taken trucks away from Shalom College and offers relief from traffic congestion on Enterprise and Maynard streets.
Another significant election commitment is the $500,000 upgrade to the Bundaberg Netball Complex, on which work has already begun. This will provide an additional four bitumen courts, new paths, seating, shade structures and fencing, and will mean the Bundaberg Netball Association can vie for the state championships to be held in that region. Hosting the state championships—as I am sure you, as a passionate netball supporter, would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz—would potentially bring thousands of competitors and their families to the region. They all need somewhere to stay, somewhere to eat and somewhere to shop. It would be a significant injection into the region's economy and an absolute coup for the Bundaberg Netball Association.
And speaking of visitors to the region, the latest International Visitor Survey figures show 151,000 international visitors travelled to the Fraser Coast and spent $37 million in the year to March 2017. In the same period, 42,000 international visitors travelled to Bundaberg and spent $46 million. These figures show that Hinkler tourism continues to go from strength to strength and, as we all know, this is fantastic news for local tourism jobs—the 3,380 current tourism jobs.
We are delivering on jobs for young people in the Hinkler electorate through the Youth Jobs PaTH program as well. It is proving a great success for the local economy, with many local businesses already having taken advantage of the financial incentives available to hire more young people. Under the program, 97 young people living in my electorate who have been dependent on welfare now have a job. This is a big win for those young people and a win for local businesses, as it will help them to grow and to grow the economy.
I encourage more business owners in Hinkler to consider taking advantage of the youth bonus wage subsidy of up to $10,000, to assist taking on extra staff to help grow their business. The PaTH program, of course, is focused on helping young people get skills, giving them a go and assuring they get long-term work.
And, finally, I have to mention the Queensland State of Origin team for tonight. It would be remiss of me not to mention them, but particularly Bundy boy Coen Hess who will make his debut tonight for the great Queensland maroons team. I can only imagine how proud his parents, Warren and Debbie, and his siblings Dana and Eden, are. They will all be there backing him tonight, I am sure. It will be a fantastic match. Hopefully, we will get the right result, and I am confident that we will. Given Mr Hess's activities in the last week—the absolute hit he put on someone last week—I look forward to him doing well in his first game, and Queensland winning game 2 in Sydney tonight.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): There is bad lighting in this chamber—what colour is that tie?
Mr Pitt: That would be maroon, Mr Deputy Speaker!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be!
Hunter Electorate: Hospitals
Hunter Electorate: Singleton Scout Group
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (10:31): One day in the lead-up to the 2011 New South Wales election, officials from Hunter New England Health paid me a visit to discuss the future planning needs for the region's acute hospitals. While it is clearly a matter for the state government, they came to see me as a key stakeholder. But they were also after some strategic advice.
They came with a proposal to build a new, significant and modern hospital on the western side of Maitland, possibly between the townships of Lochinvar and Greta. The catch was that if they were to build this new, modern high-tech hospital they would propose downgrades, if not closure, of both Cessnock and Kurri Kurri hospitals—probably a downgrade of Cessnock and the closure of Kurri. I told them that it would take an enormous public consultation effort, but that maybe the community would accept the downgrades for a brand-new hospital less than 30 minutes away—particularly given the ageing nature of the existing hospitals.
I heard nothing more for some time, but in the lead-up to the 2015 election, the Liberals promised they would build a new hospital. Further, they promised it would be built within the boundaries of the Maitland state electorate. That did not concern me; both Maitland and Cessnock LGAs extend west of Maitland. Having won the election, though, I understand that Hunter New England Health could not find a block of dirt within the Maitland LGA. So, to my surprise, the government proposed to build the hospital in Metford, which is on the eastern side of Maitland.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: over my dead body will the state government downgrade or close any existing hospitals in the Cessnock LGA to build a new hospital on the eastern side of Maitland. In any case, it is the wrong site for many reasons, including traffic problems and parking problems. The traffic in that area would be a nightmare.
The story grows worse: in the state budget just this week, the New South Wales government allocated just $5 million to the project—$5 million for a new hospital! So, seven years after identifying the need for a new hospital, area health has not turned a sod of dirt, there is no money in the budget and, just as bad if not worse, investment in existing hospitals is being deferred, obviously because there is a new hospital proposal. It is a disgrace; it is a slap in the face for the people I represent in the area and the New South Wales government has to fix the problem.
I have a quick shout out to Singleton Scouts. I joined them on Saturday for their 100th anniversary. A big shout out to Geoff Williams, their oldest member, and, of course, to Angela, Kevin, Dana, Bianca and all those who are working so hard for the children who are part of the Singleton Scout Group.
McPherson Electorate: Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) (10:34): Recently I had the opportunity to visit the Gold Coast base of the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter service and meet some of the wonderful crew members there. Over South-East Queensland, home of some of Australia's best beaches, attracting millions of locals and tourists each year, the rescue helicopter service has been the eye in the sky for 41 years. My visit started with a guided tour of the base at Carrara, and I then joined the crew on a regular patrol flight over Gold Coast beaches on a typical Queensland sunny autumn day. The tour and flight were certainly great experiences. It was great to see firsthand the wonderful, very important work that this service does.
Since the service started in 1976, the Life Saver Rescue Helicopter has conducted more than 10,000 missions along the Queensland coastline, and over 850 lives have been saved. Over that time the crew of the Westpac rescue chopper have been recognised as being among the best in the world at what they do. But it is not just pulling people from the rough surf. The life saver chopper has been involved in countless searches for missing boats at sea and bushwalkers lost in the hinterland trails. They have winched people from sinking yachts in dangerous weather and plucked injured hikers off mountain tops.
Not only does it take a high level of skill to be a member of the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter crew; it takes courage, determination and commitment to the job. Each rescue mission carries a degree of risk for crew members that is part and parcel of their job, but they put that aside to help people in danger. Today I would like to acknowledge their bravery, which epitomises the Australian spirit and has saved so many lives.
As well as the Gold Coast base at Carrara, another Westpac life saver helicopter operates from Caloundra. Together they patrol the majority of the coast, from Rainbow Beach to Rainbow Bay. The bases consist of eight pilots, 14 aircrew, 22 rescue crew, four full-time crew and 26 volunteer surf lifesavers.
Running a helicopter rescue service is expensive. While Westpac bank provides a significant amount of funding to keep this service operating, members of the community also contribute through annual fundraisers. From the time the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter flew its first rescue, not one person who has been rescued has ever been charged.
I would like to thank all of the crew, who made me feel welcome during my visit and took me through the important day-to-day operations of the rescue helicopter, and to say to them: my community in the electorate of McPherson feels that little bit safer knowing we have people such as you looking after us. I encourage everyone in the community to support this wonderful service.
Werriwa Electorate: Broadband
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (10:37): What my electorate needs is the real national broadband network, the one that seems to be lauded in all the advertising. What my electorate does not deserve is the current patchwork rollout that divides neighbour from neighbour based on internet speeds and the connection types they can access at their homes.
Some parts of my electorate do not even have access to ADSL. Suburbs like Hoxton Park, West Hoxton and Green Valley have been waiting more than eight years for promised connections. However, if you live in Long Point in my electorate, where my constituents do not even have mobile coverage, you could be forgiven for thinking that the NBN rollout has left you behind. They have lost count of the number of rollout dates NBN Co has committed to, despite neighbouring suburbs already being connected.
Kim Awad is a working mother in this area. Her children rely on decent internet access for their education. At her address there is no fixed line broadband available due to the poor quality of existing infrastructure. Furthermore, she cannot afford the cost of a Telstra mobile broadband service. To access a more affordable provider, Kim has had to affix to the roof of her house a truck aerial, which affords her access between midnight and 5 am, when the service is not too overloaded. Despite many inquiries to NBN Co, Kim remains frustrated and confused by the inability of that organisation to deliver a clear answer on a rollout date at her residence.
Unfortunately, however, Kim's story is not unusual. Another resident at Long Point, Fabian Perez, told me:
We have only been able to access ADSL, but at speeds of just 1.5 mbps. It is barely enough for a household of six people trying to study, work and use the internet at the same time.
Fabian goes on to say:
The Long Point area also has limited mobile phone reception with all carriers (Vodafone, Telstra & Optus). I have complained to our current provider and they have advised that there is nothing they can do as it is not worth the upgrade.
… … …
Eventually, when the NBN is installed, we will have a phone line that is dependent on power. Living in a bushfire prone area with one road in and out, minimal mobile phone reception and no fixed phone line available, this poses a serious risk to my family and other residents.
It is absurd that something like this could be happening in a country like Australia in this day and age. This government is rolling out a network built on archaic technologies that are slower and at the same price. More than that, this mess is actually putting people out, cutting connections and simply making things worse for their families. For many of my constituents, there is simply a sense of disappointment at what the government is delivering.
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (10:40): The Australian Honours Lists and the Order of Australia awards allow us to pause for a moment to reflect on some of the people who make Australia a better place. No doubt most of the 30,000-odd people who have received the award since 1975 would have performed their community endeavours without seeking this recognition or any celebration of their efforts. But when these times seem so focused on the challenges and the many issues that confront us around the world, I think it is important that the rest of Australia knows about their extraordinary work.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some examples of the recipients of these awards who live and work in Brisbane. Firstly, famous Brisbane designer Keri Craig-Lee for her service to fashion, clothing, business and to the community. Keri is an iconic Brisbane business woman, strongly linked to the Brisbane retail scene which I have worked so closely with at the National Retail Association. Most Brisbane locals would know how the Keri Craig Emporium, named after her, is one of Brisbane's hidden treasures for shopping, design and high tea.
Secondly, I congratulate: Warrant Officer Class One Gillian Kennedy for her meritorious devotion to duty in the development, training and mentoring of the Army's current and future junior leaders; Ms Mary Kelly for her significant service to education, to policy development and advocacy in schools, and to student and staff equity in the university sector; Lieutenant Colonel Michael Edstein for his exceptional service to the Australian Defence Force in vector borne disease research; Air Commodore Michael Burnett for his service as a legal officer and as the Deputy Judge Advocate-General of the Air Force; Dr Terence Coyne for service to medicine as a neurosurgeon; David Robinson for significant service to medicine as a plastic and reconstructive surgeon, and to the primary industry sector, particularly to agriculture; Paul Dellit for service to the performing arts in Queensland; John Scholl for his service to international communities through humanitarian support; and last but not least, Kos Sclavos—an industry association man like me—for his significant and longstanding service to pharmacy, retail and community health.
The honours help define, encourage and reinforce national aspirations, ideals and standards. They help us identify role models that we can all aspire to emulate. On behalf of the people of Brisbane, I wish to add my congratulations to these very worthy recipients and to all of the recipients of the Honours Lists.
Domestic and Family Violence
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (10:43): On 3 May 2017, I attended the candle vigil to commemorate domestic and family violence victims at the women's centre in Townsville. Members from our community gathered to remember and pay our respects to the women and children who have died as a direct result of domestic and family violence. We acknowledged their loved ones, those who have been left behind to pick up the pieces from such terribly tragic circumstances. Up until 3 May this year, 16 lives had been lost in Australia as a result of domestic and family violence that we know of.
In 2016, the women's centre in Townsville provided counselling services to over 1,000 women who indicated that domestic and/or finely violence was an issue. The effect of violence has on a person's mental health whether it is verbal, physical or emotional can be debilitating. It is never okay to be abused emotionally or physically and there is absolutely no excuse for family and domestic violence.
Disrespect and aggression are not always easy subjects to talk about in society, and this needs to change. By speaking out and talking about domestic and family violence, we create a space for stigma reduction that will create a safe zone for those who have been or are being subjected to family and domestic violence. As parents, family members, teachers, coaches, community leaders and employers, we all have an important role: to speak out to support the women and children in our community who are affected by family and domestic violence. We need to speak up when someone says or does something that excuses abuse or disrespects women.
Shamefully, Townsville is the sexual assault capital of Queensland, and the Women's Centre in Townsville is the only specialist sexual assault counselling service in our community, and it is most certainly overburdened and overwhelmed. For 30 years, the Women's Centre has provided services to an average of 14,000 women per year, delivering assistance to thousands of women and their children. The Women's Centre in Townsville does phenomenal work and offers a number of services to help those in our community who are in desperate need.
The 'Living in fear'document contains the following damning statistics: one in four Australian women experience intimate partner violence; one woman is killed in Australia by a partner or ex-partner almost every week; a woman faces an increased risk of being killed or seriously injured when she leaves or is separating from an abusive partner; three women are hospitalised each week in Australia with a traumatic brain injury caused by their partner; children are present in one out of every three family violence cases reported to the police; Aboriginal women are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised by family violence than other women; and women and girls with disabilities are twice as likely to experience violence as those without. I want to say to the women who are experiencing or have experienced any form of abuse: do not be ashamed. Do not be embarrassed to seek help or to talk with someone, because you are a survivor.
Cairns to Karumba Bike Ride
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:46): Bright and early on Saturday morning, I will be farewelling a group of local cyclists as they embark on a 780-kilometre Cairns to Karumba bike ride adventure. This is no ordinary bike ride; it is over seven days. The team traverse some incredibly challenging country, riding between 78 and 151 kilometres a day to raise money for bush kids.
This is also no ordinary team. The seven riders are all members of the Junction Clubhouse, a wonderful facility in Cairns that helps people transition from acute mental health care back into active, contributing members of our community. It is known as the Changing Lives Project, and it has been just amazing to see how far these participants have come in such a short time. When they started training in November last year, let me assure you that some of them could not even ride 50 metres, but now they are successfully finishing training rides from Cairns to the Tablelands or to Port Douglas, distances of more than 120 kilometres return. During this time, the riders' physical health and fitness has improved, along with their mental wellbeing and endurance. Every ride they complete boosts their willpower, their feeling of a sense of achievement and their team spirit.
It certainly has not been easy. The project embarked on a significant fundraising drive, and it was only a matter of a few weeks ago that funding came from the Inspire Clubhouse in Townsville, enabling the group to officially register for the C2K Ride. The C2K organisation itself has been incredibly supportive of the Junction riders taking part. Queensland Country Credit Union also made a significant contribution. I would also like to thank all of those other people and groups that have helped the team along the way.
The project has also had POM Productions filming their journey for a docudrama. Unfortunately, the videographer has fallen ill at the eleventh hour and will not be able to film the C2K Ride itself, so would anybody able to help please contact my office. It will be a great opportunity for a local videographer to follow this inspirational group and see our amazing outback, with transport, meals and accommodation provided.
So this Saturday I would like to wish Esther Ritchie, David Giordano, Jacqui Mansfield, Stephen Metcalf, Suzanne Peterkin, Tage Muller and Joe Mangano all the very best for the journey ahead. If the long stretches and gruelling hills feel like they are too much, just remember that you have battled to overcome mental illness, and that shows even greater determination and strength. Also I would like to thank their support crews who will be travelling alongside. I certainly look forward to seeing you when you return, seeing how you go and celebrating your success.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I note the honourable member's personal interest in physical fitness.
Western Sydney Airport
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:50): The Turnbull government continues with its con job consultation around Badgerys Creek airport. Here is the latest instalment of this fake consultation, with the added twist that it might actually kill off general aviation in the Sydney Basin. The protagonists are all of the aviation businesses running out of Bankstown and Camden airports whose future is threatened by the plans for an airport at Badgerys Creek. Our antagonists are the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, who have locked out those stakeholders from important deliberations over the future of aviation in Sydney.
Stunningly, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia was not given a seat on the Forum on Western Sydney Airport—or, as I like to call it, the Friends of Western Sydney Airport. It is populated largely with cheerleaders and only a few people who will actually treat this process seriously, including my friend and colleague the member for Werriwa. Deputy Speaker, you cannot lock out an association like that; you only lock out an association with 3,000 members if you do not want to hear what they have to say.
Any new airport will greatly impact on the livelihoods of many general aviation businesses operating out of Bankstown and Camden. Of the three flight models provided in the EIS for Badgerys Creek airport, AOPA believes two of them would effectively end all instrument flights from Bankstown Airport—finished, over. That would almost certainly spell the end of pilot training out of Bankstown Airport, yet this association is not given a spot on FOWSA.
The government is engaging in fake consultation over this airport. They want to push it through without public debate and they do not care about aviation businesses affected because those businesses dare to do something other than toe the government line. The infrastructure minister will not even meet with AOPA. This is a joke! The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is supposed to work with Airservices Australia to develop flightpaths, airspace management and configurations for the new airport, but when AOPA ask Airservices Australis for information about these plans they are told to speak to the department. When they ask the department for information about airspace planning they are not given any information either. So the coalition is only pro-business when those businesses are pro-coalition. In order for those businesses to plan for their future they have to be included in any planning. It is that simple. Without inclusion they perhaps face closure.
The reason the department contracted out flightpath development and did not contract Airservices Australia is to ensure that meaningful consultation was not provided for with affected communities. The government and department are knowingly excluding Airservices Australia because they want to build this airport to such a point that it is impossible to accommodate community concern. They are deliberately and knowingly misleading communities and keeping them in the dark. It will be too late to correct this when Western Sydney communities realise what is actually happening.
Murray Electorate: Public Transport
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (10:53): In my electorate of Murray, Shepparton is the largest regional centre. In fact, it is Victoria's fourth-largest regional centre, and it is home to around 70,000 people. Shepparton is situation 188 kilometres north of Melbourne, which is roughly a two-hour drive. Deputy Speaker, if you want to take the train you are looking at a minimum of 145 minutes, but more often it takes close to four hours on one of the four weekday services.
Bendigo is another regional centre, and it is only 151 kilometres away from Melbourne. It is a different case because there are 20 weekday services and each trip to Melbourne will take as little as 92 minutes.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10 : 54 to 11 : 27
Medicare
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (11:27): There is an opportunity in this parliament quite often to talk about the issues that are of real concern to your local constituents. Today I want to address an issue that has been consistently raised with me for a long time now. Before the election, we had a real debate happening about the future of Medicare in this country. I think, absolutely accurately, serious concerns were expressed about what this government, if they were returned, would do to continue the attacks that they had been launching on Medicare.
Then we saw the budget. There had been predictions by the government that they were going to lift the Medicare rebate freeze. What we actually saw was a snail's pace thaw of that Medicare rebate freeze, which will mean that people will continue to see significant out-of-pocket costs impacting their health decisions for a significant amount of time into the future. For example, for GP and specialist services the freeze on that rebate is not lifted until July 2018. For specialist procedures and allied health, it is not lifted until 2019. And the one I particularly want to address today is the fact that certain diagnostic imaging items will not be raised until 2020. Indeed, as we found out, only about seven per cent of those items are actually contained in the raising of the freeze anyway. Obviously when people have complex health issues and problems, these become real stresses in their lives.
I have been approached by a local health company in my area, Wollongong Diagnostics. Dr Alok Gupta as well as the practice manager, Kim Maslanka, have written to me expressing their grave concerns about this matter. Wollongong Diagnostics, for the information of members, have been working in my area since 2012. They employ about 20 people and they see about 150 patients every day. They tell me—and I think it is absolutely accurate—that they are very proud of and care about the work that they do. I want to quote from their letter to me:
On 5 June 2016, the Turnbull Government publicly committed, in writing, to unfreeze Medicare rebates for radiology patients when it unfreezes GP rebates. The agreement says that it will index radiology rebates "to reduce patient costs for MRIs, x-rays, CT scans and ultrasounds".
Instead, what Australians got on Budget night was a plan to index just 7% of Medicare radiology services—just 59 services out of a total of 891. And, this won't come into effect until 2020 …
You cannot trust this government with Medicare, and this is more evidence of that. (Time expired)
Maxton, Mr Murray
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (11:30): I rise today to use the opportunity of this constituency statement to share the story of Murray Maxton, an esteemed veteran of the Royal Australian Air Force who lives in the Great Southern part of my electorate. Murray was in Canberra earlier this month to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Bomber Command, the division that he and his brother Eric flew in during World War II. With some help from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Dan Tehan, and Dr Brendan Nelson, the Director of the Australian War Memorial, we managed to make this visit a very memorable occasion. The Australian War Memorial, as many of the members here would know, has the Lancaster aircraft called 'G for George', a plane that was once used in Bomber Command. The bomber is a valuable piece of history, but it is far more significant to Murray because it is the same type of aircraft he flew in 1943.
Every time Murray took to the skies in his bomber, 'D for Dog', he was accompanied by his younger brother, Eric, a radio operator. They were the only brothers ever to fly combat missions in the same aircraft. This practice was strictly forbidden at the time, but they were granted a special exemption due to the shortage of skilled aircrew. Together they flew more than 30 missions over Nazi Germany, surviving against all the odds, when the fatality rate at the time was over 50 per cent. I believe that Murray, who is 96, is the last living pilot who flew this type of aircraft. Sadly, his brother, Eric, died in 2015. Murray and Eric received numerous accolades for their service to our nation, and in 2014 both were awarded France's top military decoration, the prestigious Legion of Honour.
When Minister Tehan paid a visit to Albany in May this year, I hosted an afternoon tea for Murray and two other local World War II veterans, 100-year-old Harold Martin and 95-year-old Neil McPherson. We all had a wonderful chat, and the minister acknowledged their valuable service to our country. Murray mentioned his impending visit to Canberra and how much he would love to sit in the cockpit of G for George for one last time. With Dr Nelson's help, we were able to arrange this, and he climbed aboard the plane before having lunch under its wings on 4 June.
During his time in Canberra, Murray was also reunited with a fellow veteran he had not seen since the war. He had taken the bomb aimer over on his first flight, but the pair had not seen each other for 73 years. Murray was grateful for the chance to meet his former comrade and to reminisce about their wonderful times together.
We all owe an eternal debt to our ex-servicemen who left our shores to protect the lifestyle that we now cherish. I want to thank Minister Tehan and Dr Nelson for their generosity and pay tribute to Murray and his brother, Eric, for their selfless service to our nation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Philippines
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:33): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that 2017 marks 70 years since the Philippines established its first diplomatic office in Australia;
(2) celebrates the strength of the bilateral diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines over those 70 years; and
(3) acknowledges the importance of effective diplomatic relations with the Philippines, which are underpinned by our shared history and deep and enduring relationship.
It is with great pleasure that I move this motion today, and I thank the member for Werriwa for being willing to second the motion enthusiastically. The Filipino community is one of the largest and most energetic groups in the electorate of Chifley. People from the Philippines are the third-largest ancestry group in Chifley, with 18,000 calling the area home. That is over 10 per cent of the total population of the electorate. They make up 10 per cent of the 171,000 Filipinos in Australia. That has made Chifley, out of the 150 seats of the federal parliament, the seat with the largest number of Filipinos that reside within it, and I am working very hard to make sure it stays that way. I call many Filipinos in Western Sydney friends, and I have been so grateful for their support of me both as a candidate and as an MP.
The number of Filipino people moving into the country has accelerated since the 1980s. Many came to challenge themselves with higher education, with 10,000 Filipinos studying in Australia every year. Others have started small businesses to contribute to local economies across the nation, and more still have come as skilled migrants, adding valuable expertise to the Australian workforce. They make a contribution to the broader Australian community socially as well as economically. The diaspora is extremely active in community groups across the nation, many of which I have had the opportunity to engage with in Western Sydney.
There is always a danger singling out groups but I would like to make reference to a number of them in our area: the Association of Golden Australian Pilipinos Inc, or AGAPI; Sydney Australian-Filipino Seniors Inc, or SAFSI; Banag-Banag Inc; the Philippine Australian Community Services Inc, or PACSI; Bicol Incorporated; and the Philippine Community Council of New South Wales. There is also the important support provided by the Filipino chaplaincy of the Diocese of Parramatta. And it would be remiss of me not to give a shout-out to my friends who let me play basketball with them at the Rooty Hill Leisure Centre, many of them Filipinos, who are great players and pretty energetic. I am sorry if I have missed any, but there are so many active groups across our area. Filipinos in Australia are more likely to be employed, to have skilled managerial or professional occupations and to have completed higher education—all traits underlining the Filipino community's willingness and ability to contribute to Australia's prosperity and cohesion.
What we are celebrating today is Australia's relationship with the Philippines. It began in the 1800s. It was cemented in modern times when Philippines President Manuel L Quezon came to Australia in 1942 during World War II. More than 4,000 Australian service personnel fought alongside Filipino forces during World War II. Now we are celebrating 70 years since the Philippines opened its first diplomatic office in Australia—a massive milestone. In 1947, the Philippines established the first foreign mission in Sydney, kicking off a long and fruitful relationship. In 1948, Consul General Manuel A Alzate and eight officials opened the first consular office in Elizabeth Bay. That office was elevated to the status of embassy in 1956 with head of mission Roberto Regala becoming the first Philippine ambassador to Australia. The Philippine embassy then moved to Canberra in 1961, while the consulate remained in Sydney.
Seventy years on from the opening of that first office, I am delighted that the Philippine ambassador to Australia, Minda Calaguian-Cruz is here today—and I thank you for coming to this special occasion—accompanied by the ACT consul general, Nina Cainglet, and it is fantastic that she is also here today, and Sydney consul general, Anne Jalando-on Louis. I have had a great opportunity of working with Anne, as has the member for Werriwa, and seeing her at all the Filipino events across the years. Anne is returning shortly to the Philippines, and we thank her for her service.
Amanda Gorley is the Australian ambassador in the Philippines. This is the 71st year since Australia opened a consular office in Manila in 1946. Australia's people-to-people relationship with the Philippines remains strong. It will continue to do so in the future as more Filipinos come here to study and work and more Australian businesses reach into South-East Asia. Our nations work together to promote peace and stability in the region. The relationship will go from strength to strength.
Finally, I want to thank Filipinos living in Chifley, across Western Sydney and in the rest of Australia. May our next 70 years be just as strong as the first. I would like to thank them in a way that respects them deeply by saying, 'Maraming salamat mabuhay'.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Stanley: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:38): I commend the member for Chifley and the member for Werriwa for bringing this very important motion to the parliament. It is very important to acknowledge the relationship between Australia and the Philippines reaching this milestone. There is a special connection between Australia and the Philippines. I note that the Philippines is the only Christian country in Asia. That is not to make a sectarian statement; it is to acknowledge that both of our countries have a system of laws, customs and traditions that are really based on Judaeo-Christianity. I think that has gone a long way to serve us as very close friends. Forgive me, Filipino members in the audience here, for my Tagalog, but, 'Magkaibigan tayo, mga kaibigan para sa pitumpung taon.' 'We are friends for 70 years'.
As the Chair of the Australia-Philippines Parliamentary Group in this parliament, it is my great pleasure to speak on this motion. Since I have been here we have had two ambassadors that I have conversed with regularly, former ambassador Belen Anota and, now, Her Excellency Mrs Minda Calaguian-Cruz, who is in the chamber. I also acknowledge the Consul General, Nina Cainglet, and other members of the team, certainly the family of Minda, and particularly Jim San Agustin, whom I have had a few dealings with as well. I want to acknowledge the President of the Philippines, Rodrigo 'Rody' Duterte—Digong, or 'The Punisher', as he is sometimes known. I think he is one of the great world leaders, very strong on the issue of drugs. I know that is controversial, but it is a problem in their country that he is certainly dealing with in a way that, it seems, the Filipino community over there support.
I note that Belen Anota, the former ambassador, visited Mackay at my invitation back in July 2015. There she met the Filipino Australian Community Association of Mackay and District Incorporated. It was a great event. The president of the association is Enrique Neri, and a lot of the people associated with that group are good friends of mine. A very strong supporter of mine, a person I am happy to say is a good friend, is an elder of the Filipino community in Mackay, Mar Gorian. Also I want to mention Daniel Vinzon, Tony Dela Cruz and Edna Walpole, who are all spectacular leaders of their community.
I have visited the Philippines many times. On the last occasion over there I met with our ambassador, Amanda Gorely, and visited the Congress. I got an audience with the Speaker, 'Bebot' Alvarez, and we had an excellent conversation about the relationship between our parliaments and between our countries. I also got to meet with the chair of the National Defense and Security Committee of Congress, Amado Espino—and I will mention a bit about him and that conversation later.
Before that, I also met up with our political counsellor over there, Richard Rodgers, in our embassy. In the previous Congress we went to meet 'Sonny' Belmonte, who was the former Speaker there. Along with that I have engaged with Gawad Kalinga, a very big charity organisation in the Philippines, and was pleased to meet with Tito 'Tony' Meloto, who is a great advocate for the poor in that country. His philosophy of making capitalism—enterprise and entrepreneurship—work for people in poverty is something we could all learn from.
In the conversation I had with current speaker Alvarez we did talk about the situation which has blown up in recent times in Mindanao. There is a very big problem in the Philippines with Abu Sayyaf and the rise of the extreme Islamist tendencies within Abu Sayyaf, and it is playing out in Marawi in a terrible way at the moment. We think of them all at this point in time. There are air strikes on the city that are reinforcing what the Philippines armed forces are doing on the ground. Australia provide some support with its defence to the Philippines on this front, but in the conversation I had with Speaker Alvarez I said I think there is more that we could be doing. If our government moved to support troops on the ground to assist the Filipinos in their fight, certainly that is something I would be very supportive of.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (11:43): It is my pleasure to second the motion moved by my colleague the member for Chifley. I would also like to acknowledge the presence today of the Philippines' Ambassador to Australia and the Consul General of the Philippines in Canberra.
As noted in the member for Chifley's remarks, the motion celebrates the strength of bilateral diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines over the last 70 years. It seeks to acknowledge the importance of effective diplomatic relations for both countries, which is underscored by the fact that we have signed more than 120 agreements aimed at promoting political, security, economic and cultural linkages and cooperation.
Although this motion focuses on the development of our diplomatic relationship in the Philippines since 1947, it is worth noting that the relationship between our two nations began long before the establishment of diplomatic ties. In 1901, an early Australian census identified 700 Filipinos who were working on trading ships and in the pearling industry across Australia. However, the bond between our two nations was truly forged during World War II, when more than 4,000 Australian troops fought side by side with Filipino and Allied Forces on Philippine soil. It was not long after this time that Australia and the Philippines formally established diplomatic relations, ensuring our two countries would always have a close relationship based not just on our geographical proximity but also our shared history.
Migration between our two countries increased significantly from 1980. As many of you know, and as the member for Chifley told us, Western Sydney is now home to 28 per cent of Australia's Filipino Tagalog speakers. People of Filipino descent are one of my electorate's largest and fastest-growing population groups. At the last census, 3,500 people in Werriwa identified as coming from the Philippines, and this number of course does not include thousands of children born in Australia to Australian-Filipino parents.
The Filipino community in Australia continues to grow at a staggering pace, with over 250,000 Filipinos now calling Australia home, making it the sixth largest migrant community in Australia. However, Australia's deep relationship with the Philippines has not only delivered important cultural and people-to-people links but also encompasses significant trade and economic ties. The trade relationship between our nations has been developed through decades of mutual cooperation and exchange, and it has supported and underpinned the establishment of diplomatic ties 70 years ago.
In addition to trade ties, Australia's diplomatic relations with the Philippines has facilitated one of Australia's largest growing development assistant programs. In 2013, Australia was the largest provider of development assistance, providing funds for programs that assist educational outcomes, strengthening the public service and delivering infrastructure. On top of the development assistance, Australia has also contributed to recovery efforts after natural disasters in the Philippines, including medical mission teams who worked alongside other Filipino and international humanitarian organisations in the aftermath of typhoon Yolanda in 2013.
The relationship between our countries has never have just been a one-way street, with the Filipino community in Australia making long-lasting and significant contributions to civil society through employment, the arts, sport and various community groups. A wonderful example of this contribution in my own electorate is Councillor Rey Manoto, who has recently elected to Campbelltown City Council. Councillor Manoto has continued to display his unwavering commitment to those in his community who are less fortunate and to representing the Filipino community in Western Sydney with great distinction. Without the contributions of individuals like Councillor Manoto, as well as the entire Filipino community, Werriwa, Western Sydney and Chifley would certainly be a far lesser place, and we recognise and thank them very much. This was highlighted for me only a couple of weeks ago when I attended the 22nd Flores de Mayo Santa Cruzan celebration at All Saints, Liverpool, which was hosted by Fil-Oz Liverpool and Districts Inc. Also in attendance there was the Consul-General from Sydney who was about to leave us. The event was a wonderful celebration of Filipino culture and promoted even further goodwill between the Filipino and Australian community in my electorate.
I would like to take this opportunity to once again to call on the House to join me in celebrating the strength of bilateral diplomatic relations between Australia and the Philippines over the last 70 years. I commend the motion to the House.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:48): I am delighted to rise on this occasion and support the motion by my friend the member for Chifley recognising 70 years since we had the first Philippines diplomatic office in Australia. I acknowledge the ambassador, Her Excellency the Consul-General and her entourage. I think it is a sign of the esteem in which you were held that, even in the hectic time of parliament towards the end of the session, we all wanted to be here in order to convey these sentiments.
Following on from my friend the member for Werriwa's comments, Anne Jalando-on Louis, your predecessor, I said on many occasions, must have been the hardest working diplomat in the corps. It is certainly no reflection on anyone else, but it is certainly a standard which sets the Philippines embassy and consulates apart. For that, we all thank you.
As the member for Chifley would have said, we are so proud in the Blacktown local government area to be home to what I believe is still about 70 per cent of all Filipinos in Australia—and they have made their mark. They have made their mark in academia and small business. I particularly want to note how much they have made their mark in the community through volunteerism in a range of sectors, everything from seniors to Lions clubs to established Rotary groups. Without fail, you can go to any one of these clubs in our local areas and it will be run or held together by someone of Filipino descent. We have a very rich history of Filipino Australians, and it is one that we celebrate, as not only as a multicultural country but as a country that places immense value on what the Filipino community has brought to us.
I want to touch on something that I have been thinking about in the context of Australia's relationship with a number of other countries in our region, including Fiji and India. In Australia, in this parliament and in our media, we need not just to focus on the relationships when times are tough. Too often, I believe, we see the Philippines, for example, on the news at difficult times—during Typhoon Yolanda, for example, and I acknowledge that Australians have been very generous when it comes to natural disasters in the Philippines. But I must say that, in my opinion, there has been scant and, indeed, disproportionate coverage given to other events that are going on at the moment in the Philippines. I will not spell them all out as I think we all know what they are, but that is the kind of news that needs to feature, front and centre. We should not have to use a search engine to find out the current state of events happening in the Philippines, particularly where those involve terrorism. They should be front and centre. Australia is part of the Asia-Pacific region and we should be pushing to ensure that our dialogue recognises that. I look forward not only to the next 70 years but certainly to an enduring relationship between our two great nations.
I will never forget one of the orations that the outgoing consul general gave at one of the Philippine Independence Day events. She talked about how her father was a man of great integrity and principle in the Philippines at a time when it was dangerous to be so. I think we should acknowledge that there are many people of Filipino descent in our communities who stood up for things that they believed in and stood up for what was right. When we talk about Australian values, those are the kinds of values that I think we should hold dear.
So I honour your presence here today, Your Excellencies. I thank the member for Chifley and those on the other side, who have spoken so eloquently in this. It demonstrates the cross-party support for our relationship. This entire parliament celebrates this anniversary. Mabuhay! I am not as good as the member for Chifley, who can speak much more Tagalog than I can, but long live the Philippines. Long live the Australian-Filipino relationship.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (11:53): It is a great privilege to rise to support this motion moved by the member for Chifley. Not only does he have a better jump shot than me on the basketball court but his command of Tagalog is also much better than mine—but I will do my best with a very exuberant 'Mabuhay!', cross my fingers and see how we go. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Ambassador Her Excellency Minda Calaguian-Cruz and the ACT consul general, Ms Nina Cainglet. It is lovely to be in your presence today. I join those members from the western suburbs of Sydney, who have a predominant, very vibrant and diverse contingent of people from the Philippines in their electorates. I also join with the celebration on the western side of the country. There are about 20,000 Philippines-born people living in Western Australia, and there is an incredibly vibrant and active community in my electorate of Perth. Indeed, I had to give my apologies a few weeks ago to the Filipino Australian Multicultural Association dinner to celebrate the Philippines independence day as a result of physically not being able to be in two places on two sides of the country at once. But I made up for it in the year before, again with the member for Chifley—we are spending so much time together these days people might start talking! He accompanied me—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr HAMMOND: That is perhaps right; keep talking! He accompanied me, I am pleased to say, on 12 June 2016 in the course of a very busy federal campaign to celebrate the declaration of independence from Spanish colonial rule in 1898. We had a wonderful dinner with the Filipino community in my hometown of Perth.
Of course, as we know, the declaration itself refers to a series of events stretching all the way back to Ferdinand Magellan, famed in Western history for circumnavigating the globe, whom the declaration disavows in an instrument of bloody colonial subjugation. Of course, Magellan did not complete his circumnavigation; it was concluded by one of his officers. He was killed in the Battle of Mactan. Even after 350 years of Spanish colonial rule the Filipino people and their unique culture have survived and thrived both at home and in Perth.
I would like to convey my gratitude to those in the Filipino Australian Multicultural Association back home in WA, Anita Kinkela and the entire Famas team, for what they do for our local Perth Filipino community and indeed for the community more broadly. They raise an enormous amount of money for charity and each year they hold a wonderful Christmas lunch for people experiencing homelessness and seniors without families.
This motion goes to the strong diplomatic relationship between Australia and the Philippines, which has now lasted for 70 years. Diplomatic contact began in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, when Ben Chifley—after whom the member for Chifley's seat is named—led Australia's post-war recovery and our nation's first steps in the new world order that emerged. At the same time, the Philippines were emerging from the authority of American rule to which it has been subject since Spain ceded the colony to the United States in the Treaty of Paris in 1898.
Here we find ourselves, two very close neighbours, both shaking off our colonials pasts to make sure that we all take our places acting on the world stage, leading by example and by conduct and celebrating ethnicity, diversity and all of the wonderful things it has to offer. The relationship is close enough to sustain seven consulates in the state and territory capitals as well as the embassy in Canberra. I note that the Philippines Consulate-General in Perth is temporarily closed, and I very much look forward to its reopening very shortly.
Whenever I have the honour of attending a Filipino community event I am struck by the fabric of the strength of the community in Western Australia. The community knows how to look after each other, how to look after others and how to create a true sense of community. They also really know how to throw a party. This year, celebrating the 70th anniversary of the first Philippines diplomatic office in Australia it is a true privilege to be part of the party and part of this motion. I commend the motion to the House. Once again, mabuhay!
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (11:58): by leave—Again, I commend the member for Chifley and the member for Werriwa on this motion. All that has been said is so true. We have 70 years of friendship. We wonder why there has been such strong friendship. The members talked about values and the values between Filipinos and Australians being very similar. There are a number of Filipino values, and when you look at them, they line up with Australian values.
Again, apologies for my Tagalog, but the first value is known as pakikipagkapwa tao, which in Australia is egalitarianism, mateship and family values. I stayed with a family that lived in Negros Oriental. Yes, I had to use the tabo. But the reality was, when we are talking about differences between Australia and the Philippines we talked about aged-care centres. They looked on in horror at the concept of an aged-care centre, because their families keep their elders with them as they get older and look after them. Biro, or joy an humour, is an Australian characteristic as well. The Prime Minister would love the fact that among the Filipino traits are flexibility, adaptability and creativity. They certainly are terminologies that have been used in recent times. The faith and religiosity of the Filipino people is another value which is shared by many in Australia. The ability to survive, as we have seen through events like Typhoon Haiyan, or Yolanda, and other disasters. We have cyclones and bushfires here in Australia, so we have that connection of surviving the harshness of nature. Hard work and industry: the Filipino people are known for migrating right around the world and going right around the world to work. That is something that we value in this country. Finally, there is hospitality, which again goes to the mateship.
It is easy to see why our two countries have had that friendship for such a long time. The values that the Filipino people subscribe to are the same values that the Australian people subscribe to. I could add another value that I subscribe to—karaoke singing—but we will not go there.
In conclusion, because I want my contribution to be brief: Mabuhay ang Pilipinas! Long live the Philippines! And long live the connection between our two countries.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting.
ThinkUKnow Program
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (12:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the work of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) through the ThinkUKnow program, a free, evidence-based cyber safety program, to provide educational presentations to parents, carers and teachers, and students across Australia;
(2) further recognises that ThinkUKnow is Australia's first and only nationally delivered crime prevention program that is delivered in partnership with law enforcement and industry;
(3) thanks the dedicated volunteers and federal, state and territory police forces that have delivered ThinkUKnow presentations to more than 150,000 school students from year three through to year 12; and
(4) congratulates the Government and the AFP for leading the way by partnering with state and territory police forces, and the private sector, to develop new measures to keep our children safe in the online environment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Leeser: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (12:02): I think all of us understand why there is a great need for resources in relation to children's safety online. ThinkUKnow is a free, evidence based cybersafety program that provides presentations to Australian parents, carers, teachers and students. It provides information on the technologies young people use, on the challenges they may face and, importantly, on how those challenges can be overcome. Presentations are delivered face to face or digitally.
ThinkUKnow aims to provide parents with the tools to create a safer online environment for young people in their care. The presentations cover what young people say, see and do online. They cover topics such as social-media reputation management, cyberbullying, sexting, online grooming, online gaming, inappropriate content, privacy management, identity theft, how to protect devices and how to report matters when things go wrong. The program bridges the knowledge gap between adults and young people so that everyone has an understanding of the roles they play and what they can do if something goes wrong online. The adult and youth presentations have been designed to align to ensure adults receive complementary information to assist them in communicating with children and young people about the technology they use. It is becoming increasingly urgent to bridge the digital generational gap—I know this through the presentations I do myself—ensuring parents, teachers and carers are vigilant for the signs of online dangers.
In 2015, the AFP received more than 11,000 reports of online child exploitation. Predators are very clever at exploiting vulnerable young people exploring the online environment, so it is more important than ever that we know the risks our children may be exposed to and how to minimise these risks, including where to report problems.
Educating parents and teachers about how to keep our children safe online has never been more vital. This is why I have given hundreds of cybersafety presentations to schools, community groups and parents.
In 2015-16, the ThinkUKnow volunteers delivered more than one presentation each day of the year, a total of 386, to more than 10,000 parents, carers and teachers. They are doing a great job. In 2015-16, state and territory police delivered ThinkUKnow presentations to more than 150,000 school students from year 3 through to year 12. ThinkUKnow is a vital initiative that demonstrates the commitment of the government to educating our children on how to stay safe, respectful and resilient online.
The majority of states and territories across Australia are signed partners with ThinkUKnow, including WA Police, Northern Territory Police, SA Police, the New South Wales Police Force, Tasmania Police and the Queensland Police Service. ThinkUKnow is yet another example of the work the government and the Australian Federal Police are doing working together to keep our children safe online, as is the work the government is doing with the eSafety Commissioner. When you look at the ThinkUKnow website you see the practical tools—how to have fun, how to stay in control, how to report—and a great cybercafe. It covers a range of different issues in how to have fun—in chatting, in instant messaging, in emails and mobiles, in chat rooms, on social networking sites, in file sharing and gaming—and gives very practical support for young people.
In the 'How to report' section it explains how a lot of young people do not understand who they could be talking to, where those people are and what they actually might want from that young person. They are told on the ThinkUKnow site that sometimes things make them feel upset, that people play games and share pictures. Some things make them upset: they may say nasty things and upset children, or they might see things they do not like. Of course it is not their fault. They need to tell their trusted adult straight away, to tell them about what is going on online. They need to save any messages that may have upset that child so that they know—you can show that to the person, your trusted adult, that you are telling it to, whether it is your school, your teacher, the local police: whoever is required. And there is no way these young people will get into trouble for this.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:07): As the shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity and Defence, I thank the member for Forrest for bringing forward this motion on cyber safety, because with the speed at which technology evolves, we can never talk about and we can never hear enough about cyber safety. Programs like these are really important. They make a valuable contribution to our community. They make a valuable contribution in covering a range of topics of concern to the community, including sexting, cyberbullying, online child exploitation, online privacy and what steps need to be taken when things go wrong.
A cyber safety presentation covering the perspectives of both the law enforcement and the industry provides our communities with a greater understanding of what the cyber threats are, whether there are criminal implications and what enforcement or other outcomes could result. While there is a range of these programs for very small and teenage Australians and Australians in their twenties, we also need to spend as much time focusing on parents and grandparents. In my first term of parliament I ran a series of cyber safety presentations where we actually introduced and discussed with grandparents in particular what was taking place online, the challenges that their grandchildren were confronting and how they could play a role in ensuring that their grandchildren in particular were safe.
While our understanding of the cyber environment grows, we are seeing more of us develop a digital footprint with more of our personal lives and transactions occurring online. In light of this, we need to consider whether our legal frameworks are keeping up with the pace of change. Just last week we considered changes to the enhancing online safety and protecting minors online issue. In the enhancing online safety debate, we heard how the changes would enhance the soft powers of the eSafety Commissioner. In the protecting minors online debate, we heard how changes to the code could protect children from grooming and exploitation and where suspects could be apprehended or charged before an event took place. This is in response to that tragic circumstance surrounding what happened to Carly Ryan.
While the protecting minors online bill will be considered further, subject to the outcome of a Senate inquiry, we missed a significant opportunity with the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Amendment Bill. The bill did not create any new offences or civil penalties and it did not provide any new regulatory powers. It failed to take account of policy suggestions from Labor—from the member for Gellibrand—about criminalising the non-consensual sharing of private sexual material, or, as it is known, revenge porn.
In 2016, both a Senate inquiry and COAG recommended that the Commonwealth legislate for offences in relation to revenge porn, but the Turnbull government failed to act. In parallel, some states and territories have begun to criminalise the conduct at the state and territory level. They have responded in the past 12 months. But, even now, there is still no overarching Commonwealth law that can provide consistency, a baseline of protection across the nation that will address the inconsistencies from state to state and territory to territory. The Turnbull government will make the excuse that, in November 2016, COAG agreed to develop principles for harmonising revenge porn laws, but they have made no commitment to introducing or supporting Commonwealth legislation to criminalise this outrageously egregious behaviour. That is why Labor reintroduced its bill in October 2016. Labor will continue to fight for the criminalisation of revenge porn, including the creation of appropriate Commonwealth offences. Again, I commend the member for Gellibrand, who initiated that bill. Just because the Turnbull government has its head in the sand on these issues does not mean we are afraid to tackle them head-on. Labor members, like the member for Gellibrand, are tackling this head-on.
Until now, our focus has been on promoting education and awareness of internet safety and responsibility. Last week's consideration of the protecting minors online bill was the first time in many years that a government had pursued a legislative enforcement option to address online predators. Labor wants to ensure that all Australians feel safe online and recognises that parents should be able to feel safe knowing that their children will not meet the same tragic fate as Carly Ryan. Our legal frameworks need to continually adapt to the technological environment and community expectations—they are vitally important—as they evolve over time to ensure that enforcement and safeguards are in place so that Australian children are safe and parents can have peace of mind knowing that their children are being kept safe.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (12:11): I seek leave to continue my comments.
Leave granted.
Ms MARINO: I continue my remarks around the ThinkUKnow program and the need for parents to be very well aware of what their children are involved with online. ThinkUKnow is one initiative of this government; the Office of the Children's eSafety Commissioner is another, and a very valuable resource it is, too.
One of the elements of ThinkUKnow is a wonderful children's line, a free service that is available for young people. The number, for those who might be interested, is 0800 1111. What young people will find at the end of this line is a counsellor who is going to listen, who will not make judgements and who will be able to give them good advice. When young people do something silly, make a mistake or come across things that scare them, they often will not talk to mum or dad. From my experience of hundreds of cybersafety presentations and just listening to children in those presentations, I know a number of them choose not to tell mum or dad or even a trusted adult—and that is what I asked them to do, to find that trusted adult—because they are worried that mum and dad might punish them, take away the device or limit the amount of time they can have to use the device. When that is the case for a young person, I really encourage them to call either the Kids Helpline or Childline, which is part of ThinkUKnow. Not only is it, as I said, a free call for these young people who are worried about what is going on; it does not actually show up on their phone bill either. Given that that can frequently be a very important issue for a young person, it is a very good service to help them deal with what they need to deal with online.
We know that the majority of people using the wonderful resource that is the internet are there for the right reasons, but, with the proportion that are not, children need to know how to stay safe, where to go for help and who to ask for help, which is where the Children's eSafety Commissioner comes in.
When I talk to young people, I cover items such as Facebook and Twitter, their digital and online footprint, cyberbullying and the issue of online grooming for sex, which, unfortunately, is too common. I talk about sexting and scams as well. It is interesting that the youngest person that we have had so far was a young girl of 11. Her mother rang my office after one of my presentations to say that after listening to the presentation her 11-year-old daughter had come home to say, 'I've just realised I'm being groomed online for sex'—she is 11. In some of the other presentations I have done, the young people who have come forward were 13 and 14. When we talk about the issues around image based abuse and we see young people who take naked or semi-naked photos and share them, it is also a great concern. Only a couple of weeks ago, I did a presentation to a school in the southern part of my electorate and I had a parent ring me since who said, 'My 13-year-old daughter has just told me that she shared a completely naked photo of herself with her boyfriend. They have now separated and he has chosen to share those photos with his new girlfriend and others.' The thought of a 13-year-old girl sharing those photos in the first place is an issue, but then what happens to those photos and the fact that they are basically there forever is of real concern. The fact that the child was able to talk to her father about this problem was a positive, and the fact that he was then going to talk to the eSafety Commissioner about how to get this dealt with was even better. It is very important that young people assume that whatever they share could well be available for others to see, use and share almost indefinitely. That is something that I frequently find young people do not understand, and even adults do not understand, in this space. Simply pressing 'Delete' on your particular device is not enough because this is out on the internet. Subject to the opposition's support, I will continue my remarks later.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (12:17): I thank the member for moving this motion. Protecting ourselves in the digital age is a challenge that most Australians, young and old, are still coming to grips with. SoThinkUKnow, a free program of cybersafety presentations for parents, carers, teachers and students, is a valuable resource. It is pleasing to see that the initiative was a partnership of the AFP, the Commonwealth Bank, Microsoft and Datacom working closely with state and territory police and Neighbourhood Watch Australasia. Government, business and the general public all benefit from a more secure and resilient info security environment, so collaborations of this kind are important. ThinkUKnow presentations addresses themes, including reputation management, bullying, sexting, grooming, online gaming, privacy management, identity theft, how to protect your devices and what to do when things go wrong.
Australian children are not the only ones who need to educate themselves about how to protect themselves online from online risks. To this end, I encourage all members and staff to participate in the cybersecurity training currently being offered by the Department of Parliamentary Services because, in recent times, members of parliament, their staff and campaign volunteers have become prominent targets for cyberthreats. All MPs should understand that info security is not just a matter for ministers and our security agencies. Infosec is not about protecting classified government information anymore. Hackers now routinely target elected representatives, candidates and staff in political systems around the world with a wide range of motivations. As public figures, politicians are uniquely vulnerable to doxing, ransomware attacks and old-fashioned blackmail.
As influential figures in government policymaking, we are also major targets of influence operations from foreign adversaries using online tools. A report from the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence outlining the US intelligence community's assessment of Russian efforts to use cyberoperations to influence the recent US election told a damning story in this respect. The success of Russian cyberoperations in the US election should be a warning to political actors around the world. Indeed, before the high-profile attacks on Hillary Clinton and the DNC, there were major spear phishing attacks on politicians from Germany, Taiwan, Japan and a range of South American nations. Recent events in the US will only encourage further attacks. It would be naive not to think that Australian political figures are not targets for these kinds of attacks. This risk will only grow as the global geostrategic environment, and Australia's role in it, becomes more complex and contested.
Despite the periodic release of much-ballyhooed cybersecurity strategies, little of this has seeped into the consciousness, and more importantly, into the behaviours of people working in and around Australian politics. You would get mostly blank looks if you tried to start up a conversation in this building about the implications of the Mirai botnet or the Shadow Brokers information dumps—two of the most significant InfoSec developments of the past 12 months. The real-world impact of the WannaCry ransomware worm has attracted some attention in this chamber, thanks to its significant impact on the UK National Health Service. But you would think people would be more interested in exploring the implications of what appears to have happened here: namely, an NSA-developed exploit being stolen by a hacking group that is widely viewed as being a front for a government actor, that exploit being dumped online publicly and then the North Korean government seemingly picking it up and operationalising in a ransomware attack.
It is only a matter of time before we see our own political InfoSec scandals. Indeed, we have already seen evidence that the online security of MPs has been compromised. MPs, staff and campaign volunteers routinely use online platforms outside those administered by DPS: social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram; private email accounts like Gmail and Yahoo; collaboration platforms like Slack; and a range of CRM platforms. Almost all of these services would contain sensitive information that would be of value to third-party attackers.
The Have I been pwned website, operated by Australian web security expert and Microsoft regional director, Troy Hunt, aggregates data comprised of these data breaches and allows users to search for their usernames or emails within it. You can find a number of compromised accounts associated with Australian members of parliament official APH email addresses on this site. No doubt, many more accounts associated with the private email addresses of MPs and their staff will have been compromised in this way. I encourage members and their staff to check their email addresses and usernames on this site, to change the passwords associated with any of the accounts that have been compromised and to cease using the compromised passwords on any other accounts.
To build resilience against online threats across our political system we need to invest in awareness, competence building and information sharing about attacks within the political community. That is a responsibility that falls on every one of us in this chamber.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (12:22): I am happy to speak on this resolution. It is an important resolution that has been moved by a member of parliament who has expressed views about this, has had concerns about this and has thought a lot about this. It was very good that she brought it to the parliament.
I want to expand on a point that was made by the member for Gellibrand—he did it in a lot more of a diplomatic way than I will—which is that this is an important issue, particularly for members of parliament that are setting a policy on this. Our side has stumped up with a number of members to actually speak on this. We had to have the mover of the resolution speak on this a number of times. Why? Because none of those opposite, who are in government and who have more MPs than us, could be bothered to speak on this resolution. That, of itself, is a problem. And here is why: we need—as the member for Gellibrand rightly reflected in his contribution—more MPs to be thinking about this. The more MPs realise that they are vulnerable and the more that they realise it in the areas where they become more and more responsible—for example, when moving from being MPs to actual ministers—then they have to make decisions that will potentially impact or deal with some of the issues that are at the very heart of what we are discussing here.
What the member for Forrest has raised is really important. It is something that occupies the minds of parents across the country and, I dare say, a lot of parents who are in this building. It is important that we support initiatives that concern the way in which young Australians, and particularly those that are impressionable, engage with technology. There is not a parent in the country who does not see their young kids already embracing technology very early in their life. You can see two-year-olds—I see it with my own son, but you see it with others—that embrace technology and can navigate around it. When you see a four-year-old using Siri on an iPad, you know that they are starting to become a lot more au fait and comfortable with technology. I completely endorse this resolution and what is behind it in terms of the way that the member for Forrest addressed that, as well as the other members who have contributed in this.
Moving beyond cybersecurity and moving into the broader issue of digital transformation within government, the problem is that a lot of MPs do not engage. There is a lot at stake financially, and also from a security perspective, if they do not do it. We need more and more interest in it.
Again, as the member for Gellibrand rightly pointed out, you could name a number of different attacks and a number of different players on the international stage who are knowingly exploiting vulnerabilities in a way that would cause governments and politicians grief. Elsewhere we have seen, as has been reflected most prominently in the US election, this being done in a way that could potentially impact or influence the outcome of those elections while we are blithely walking along thinking that it will not happen to us—until we get tripped up. We need ministers around the cabinet table who are actively engaged in making decisions that will protect governments, departments and businesses. Also, it is hard for us to say to businesses, 'You need to take this seriously,' if the people who are sending that message are not doing it themselves at a government level. That needs to be done as well.
We have been critical, too. To her great credit, Prime Minister Gillard moved to build on some of the work in cybersecurity from a government perspective, releasing some of the initiatives and the strategies that we wanted to see in this place. We have had a lot of talk out of this government, but it has taken a very long period of time to act on it. It took a long time to appoint key personnel into positions regarding cybersecurity, and there are still concerns about how fast government is moving on this. I think that is something that needs to be pursued here but, again, if you cannot get interest from the government—from its own MPs—to support a resolution like this and to step up today, you have to wonder whether or not that is reflected at senior levels as well. They might have some people appointed to it, but there is only one. You rarely hear many of the others actually working on it.
I also wonder why we have an assistant minister focused on this area and why we also have another body in the DTA. It has now set up its own cybersecurity arm within it—all to make it look like they are doing a lot. We are asking the question, 'How effective is it?' It would be great to have a clear, concise demonstration of will being directed to outcome, so that we do not have more of this happening and impacting on government. But, again, I do commend the member for Forrest for raising this. This is very important for us to focus on.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Rowland ): Thank you. There being no further speakers on that motion, 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.
Tasmania: Defence Industry
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (12:28): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that Tasmania has the defence knowledge, capabilities and capacities to participate in the defence industries sector;
(2) notes that:
(a) the University of Tasmania, through its world leading marine research, engineering and training facility the Australian Maritime College (AMC), is the acknowledged Australian leader in maritime education in both technical skills and research;
(b) the AMC has developed a range of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) which are suited for defence purposes and provide the opportunity for:
(i) increased consolidation of research and innovation at the University of Tasmania Inveresk site;
(ii) the redevelopment of the University of Tasmania, AMC Newnham site; and
(iii) associated local advanced manufacturing, particularly in North and North West Tasmania;
(c) the state-of-the-art AUV's enable a broad range of scientific, industry and defence related projects by facilitating exploration and data collection in remote and inhospitable locations;
(d) the AMC has the capability to lead or play a key role in any necessary training associated with significant defence projects, such as the Future Submarines Program;
(e) in addition to the defence opportunity that the AUV's represent, Tasmania already has a number of industries with the capability to participate in defence related industries supporting for example combat reconnaissance vehicles, shield and antenna protection and marine survival;
(f) defence industry opportunities for Tasmania will deliver a range of significant social and economic benefits across the state including a growth in industry research and increased employment through advanced manufacturing; and
(g) there is unequivocal and mutual support from both the Labor and Liberal parties at a state and federal level for Tasmania as a key centre for defence research, development and industry; and
(3) calls on the:
(a) Department of Defence to continue to work with industry with the goal of ensuring Tasmania is as integrated as possible in Australia's defence capability, including defence research, associated education, training and manufacturing; and
(b) Government to continue working collaboratively with the Tasmanian Government so Tasmania can play its role in the defence research and manufacturing industries sector.
I have to note there are no government speakers for this motion, and that would be because there are not any coalition members representing the state of Tasmania in the House, which is understandable. But I know I am adequately backed up by my Labor colleagues for Tasmania in the member for Bass and the member for Lyons, and I thank them for their contributions.
This motion I put forward today is exactly the same motion that went through the Senate some weeks ago, which came out of a bipartisan arrangement with the coalition. In turn, that arrangement came out of a meeting the Tasmanian MPs and senators had with the University of Tasmania and the Australian Maritime College, to look at Tasmania's defence capabilities and how we can promote those better.
I have to thank Labor's Senator Carol Brown, who worked very closely with the Liberal Senate members, and probably more so with Senator Duniam and Senator Bushby, whom I would like to thank for their contribution to this motion. This motion went through the Senate with bipartisan support. I think that is really important when we are talking about something so important for the state of Tasmania. This is something that, if Defence looked at investing more money in defence materiel in Tasmania, would create a lot of jobs and grow the Tasmanian economy. It was quite pleasing that that motion received bipartisan support from the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. This motion has also received support from the Minister for Defence Materiel and the shadow minister for defence, so it is clearly a very bipartisan motion, which is fantastic for our state.
When we had this meeting with the AMC and the university, there was a genuine view that we needed to promote Tasmania's manufacturing industries and research capabilities for Tasmania to participate in the defence sector. My colleague the member for Bass will speak more about the Australian Maritime College, but I want to use my time to talk about what has been done previously by Labor, and then speak about my electorate.
In southern Tasmania, there exist a large number of industries with defence capability, predominantly in and around Prince of Wales Bay on the Derwent River. These include Incat, who sold catamarans to the United States navy; Taylor Bros, who are specialists in marine accommodation and who have been awarded a contract for the supply and installation of these products for the new air warfare destroyers; specialist antenna suppliers Moonraker Australia, who have been awarded a contract for these new vessels; and Liferaft Systems Australia, who design and manufacture marine evacuation systems and life rafts. I would like to congratulate Senator Carol Brown and the former Labor candidate for Denison, Jane Austin, who had previously secured a commitment from this side of the House for Prince of Wales Bay to be declared a defence precinct.
In my electorate in the north-west of Tasmania, we are very fortunate to have a number of manufacturers and fabricators who have the capability to participate in the defence industry. This was evidenced through the Department of Defence Land 400 bid with local manufacturer Elphinstone Group, who partnered with Elbit Systems to construct new combat reconnaissance vehicles. The Team Sentinel bid, as it was known, brought together local, interstate and overseas expertise. Team Sentinel also signed on with Deakin University to develop a mobile target system for its Land 400 vehicle, which further demonstrates the collaboration that can take place between tertiary institutions and local manufacturers. While the Team Sentinel bid was not down-selected to the next stage, it did demonstrate the capability that does exist in Tasmania.
In April, I was pleased to host a visit to my electorate by the shadow minister for defence. The shadow minister reaffirmed Labor's support for Tasmania playing a role in Australia's defence capability, and he was able to inspect three local manufacturers. The first one was Elphinstone. As mentioned, Elphinstone was a partner in the Team Sentinel bid. It is an industry leader in the design, manufacture and support of quality equipment for the global underground, surface mining and rail maintenance industries. Elphinstone also enjoys a close relationship with UTAS and the AMC. Last year, employers from Elphinstone were upskilled in a project delivered by Productivity Improvers, with the AMC being the registered training organisation. Elphinstone has been the driving force behind the establishment of a simulated work environment, or SWE, that is located at the Tasmanian Manufacturing Centre of Excellence in Burnie.
The second place we visited was Penguin Composites, which has separate facilities for recreational vehicle assembly, metal workshops and fibreglassing. Some of the projects that have been completed by Penguin Composites include building igloos for Antarctica, and, more recently, working with AMSA on the construction of lighthouses. Direct Edge in Burnie produces computerised sheet metal for manufacturing product, which is sold directly and indirectly throughout the world. So we certainly have the capability in Tasmania. I am pleased that this has received bipartisan support in the Senate, and I thank those speakers who will be speaking on this today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Do I have a seconder for the motion?
Mr HART (Bass) (12:33): I second the motion. I am very pleased to rise in this chamber to support this motion moved by my good friend the member for Braddon. The Australian Maritime College is Australia's peak maritime research and training organisation. It is primarily based within my electorate of Bass, although it has other facilities at Beauty Point within the electorate of Lyons.
Members will be aware that, in the 2016 federal election, both parties supported the University of Tasmania's transformation project with the effect of facilitating the move of the northern campuses of the University of Tasmania at Burnie and Newnham. The move of the campus in Launceston from Newnham to Inveresk will transform the potential for thousands of Tasmanian students to undertake further education, driving greater educational attainment through more students undertaking trades and higher education, including associate degrees. The relocation of the Launceston campus to Inveresk creates significant potential for innovative uses of the old campus. That is enhanced by the fact that the Australian Maritime College will remain at Newnham.
The Australian Maritime College has a proud history of working with industry across the many disciplines it leads, both in research and in training. It undertakes significant research with respect to renewable energy, including facilitating design and testing of both wave and tidal power generation.
At a recent visit to the Australian Maritime College with shadow assistant minister Pat Conroy, the member for Shortland, we inspected the Australian Maritime College's extensive cavitation testing facility. This facility is world leading. Its expertise already has defence potential, given that it has undertaken testing for Australian defence projects but also for, amongst others, the United States Navy.
It has particular expertise in the design of unmanned robotic vehicles, otherwise known as autonomous underwater vehicles. These vehicles are already a key tool in underwater exploration. There are obvious applications in defence, given that such vehicles are not subject to the limitations associated with the carriage of crew. Remote sensing is already a particular expertise developed by the University of Tasmania, particularly in agriculture. This research capability and the Maritime College's close connection with industry can facilitate the development of an industry hub in Launceston, particularly in the fabrication of these vehicles.
Launceston has access to Australia's fastest broadband internet. Developments in manufacturing, including the use of 3D printing, assume that a design, even a complex design, can be transmitted to a 3D printer for manufacture. Engineering and architecture, indeed any process which utilises CAD software, are significantly enhanced by access to gigabit internet. Currently there is no better place in Australia to leverage the investment in fibre internet and access to world-beating research, development and training than in Launceston, Tasmania.
We know that there is still a future for manufacturing in Australia, providing that manufacturers identify an area where expertise and skills are overriding considerations, rather than high-volume production. We also know that investment in defence contracting fulfils the object of supporting advanced manufacturing. There are many components required in complex systems, whether what is being manufactured is a submarine, a surface vessel or a land based vehicle.
The government has spoken on many occasions about the potential for businesses within Australia to participate in the significant investments required to deliver these projects. I have previously spoken in this place about the necessity for training, in particular trades training, associated with shipbuilding in South Australia. The AMC should play a key role in the establishment of any maritime technical college in South Australia. The AMC is not just a research institution. It is not just an institution of higher learning. It has a proud history in training for trades including those associated with shipping and defence. Clearly, investment in advanced manufacture will be enhanced by close proximity to an institution like the AMC. This will particularly be the case given that vocational training, associate degrees and higher degrees including engineering are available within close proximity to the Newnham campus.
There are already success stories in advanced manufacturing within my electorate of Bass and also within Northern Tasmania. I have previously spoken about the expertise which is being developed with respect to remote sensing. The Sense-T project focused on remote sensing. It also led, quite remarkably, to establishment within Launceston of a specialised advanced manufacturing business, which is Definium Technologies. This business manufactures circuit boards of its own design and on a contract basis. It has particular expertise in the manufacture of sensors and control systems. It is also at the forefront of developing long-range, low-power wireless network applications. There is so much potential within Northern Tasmania which can be realised by further investment, as sought by this motion.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (12:38): I think it says something that three Labor MPs from Tasmania are united in supporting this motion moved by my friend the member for Braddon and seconded by the member for Bass and that an identical motion has passed the Senate with bipartisan support. Tasmania stands united, no matter your politics, when it comes to getting a fairer deal on defence training and manufacturing opportunities. Tasmania has led the way with marine training and research for many years, with students relocating to our island state to develop skills and get the training that gets them jobs at sea. The expertise involved in training people for a life at sea is directly relevant to the motion before the Chamber.
I can think of no centre in Australia that is better placed to provide maritime defence training than the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania. Indeed, the partnerships between business, the AMC and the University of Tasmania are strong, and they are hugely beneficial to the region.
Associate Professor Irene Penesis says Tasmania is:
… at the forefront of marine renewable energy research in Australia.
The Australian Maritime College at the University of Tasmania has the largest collection of marine renewable energy researchers in the country. Our research is founded on the huge renewable energy potential of Tasmania, with its powerful waves and tides, and proven hydro and wind resources
It is a leader in this field of marine technology.
The quality and reputation of both AMC and UTAS continue to grow. AMC delivers the kind of training that you cannot find anywhere else in the world. It is innovative, flexible and diversity in its training models. Recently, the French team that has Australia's $50 billion submarine construction contract has signed up to use AMC's training expertise. My colleague the member for Braddon has brought this motion to the House, seeking bipartisan support from the House—we already have it from the Senate—to continue placing Tasmania at the front and centre of planning and development for defence investment.
It is important to remind members from the mainland that Tasmania has an important role to play in both defence training and manufacturing. I was delighted to hear the member for Braddon earlier, saying that in the Senate this motion had the support of the Minister the Defence Materiel and the shadow minister for defence. That is just fantastic news. Obviously, the message is getting to where it needs to go. From where I sit, the spirit of bipartisanship notwithstanding, it looks like WA and SA do more than all right from defence investment, and we would like to see a little more come to Tasmania.
A future that includes defence manufacturing is important for Tasmania in terms of secure, well-paid and highly-skilled work. But it is of equal benefit to the nation. It makes sense to place critical manufacturing assets required for defence as far as possible from potential threats. Unless we are expecting an invasion of ICBMs from Antarctica or—to paraphrase Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, 'militarised penguins'—Tasmania is as secure as it comes.
Tasmanians also have the capacity, the drive, the skills and the passion to manufacture maritime defence assets that are world standard. We already do that. In addition to the sought-after civilian ferries, Incat, in the south of Tasmania, provides catamarans to the US Navy. Taylor Bros specialise in large-scale prefabricated ship fit-outs, and have just been awarded a contract for the supply and installation of combination products for new antiwarfare destroyers.
Specialist antenna supplies, Moonraker Australia—I cannot say that without thinking of James Bond!—will supply antennas for new vessels, while Liferaft Systems Australia designs and manufactures marine evacuation systems and large-capacity life rafts. CBG Systems is globally competitive in shipboard fire protection and installation, while Muir Engineering Group produces winches and windlasses for mega-yachts around the world. And Richardson Devine Marine builds fast ferries and offshore support vessels for export markets, including Tanzania, Japan and New Zealand.
In my electorate, we have highly-skilled workforces at The Engineering Company in Brighton, at Elphinstone Australia at Triabunna and at Haywards at Evandale to name a few. These worksites concentrate on advanced manufacturing, producing products used all over the world—including the unforgiving terrain of the Antarctic.
What this motion offers is long-term jobs generation and the building of a skilled defence manufacturing workforce, which is itself a national security asset. Siting defence manufacturing in Tasmania has a flow-over effect into the wider Tasmanian community, ensuring an influx of energy and dollars. Critically, it will have a positive effect on the employment of apprentices as well; since 2013 we have lost too many.
I urge members opposite to support this motion and to work with us. Thank you
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: Employment
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (12:44): I move:
That this House:
(1) condemns the Queensland Government for failing the people of Queensland;
(2) notes that:
(a) Queensland is leading the nation on job losses;
(b) more than 30,000 jobs have disappeared from Queensland in the last year and almost 40,000 people have given up looking;
(c) Queensland's participation rate is at a more than 20-year low and more people are giving up looking for work; and
(d) Queensland is in a jobs crisis and it is clear that the Premier of Queensland has no plan for the future; and
(3) calls on the Queensland Government to end its empty rhetoric on jobs and actually start delivering for the people of Queensland.
It was just a few short weeks ago that we were treated to the news that the Queensland government had miraculously delivered a jobs budget in my home state of Queensland. In fact, the term was a jobs 'bonanza', a veritable goldmine of opportunities for our jobseekers. The Palasczczuk government promised this, but in the same breath they admitted they could not even guarantee that Queensland's unemployment rate would fall below six per cent in the foreseeable future.
What a sham it is from this state government that keeps spouting the rhetoric that it is providing for Queensland but in reality there is no clear strategy for boosting employment figures. Current figures show that Queensland still has the second-worst unemployment rate in Australia. I will acknowledge that some 42,700 jobs were created last year but just 6,600 of them were full-time positions and, in reality, 11,200 full-time jobs were lost just last month. The unemployment rate in Queensland has not budged from 6.3 per cent since the beginning of this year, and the gap between the Queensland and the Australian unemployment rate has tripled.
It is true that Queensland's unemployment picture looks prettier currently but this has only been because of a declining participation rate of jobseekers. Fewer people are actively participating in the labour market, meaning they are not reflected in the unemployment numbers, which is artificially lowering the headline unemployment rate. If the participation rate in Queensland had actually remained steady instead of falling, as it has under the Labor government, the trend unemployment rate in Queensland would actually be about seven per cent. Instead of leading the nation in job creation and job security as we should be, we see record unemployment rates in Townsville and sky-high youth unemployment rates in regional centres. We are fighting for the wooden spoon, for last place. That is not where a state like Queensland should be. But this was not always the case.
When Labor came to power, Queensland's unemployment rate was equal with Victoria, just behind New South Wales, and well ahead of South Australia and Tasmania. So what has happened? I know the effects of this softly softly Labor government are being felt in my own electorate of Forde, with some 2,000 jobs disappearing from the Logan Beaudesert region in the past year. It is clear Queenslanders are being let down and left behind by the Palaszczuk Labor government.
In a refreshing contrast to the same old rhetoric we are getting from state Labor, the state opposition leader, Tim Nicholls, recently highlighted in his budget reply speech how too many rules exist in Queensland that stifle enterprise and hamstring entrepreneurship, with the ultimate price being paid but fewer jobs created. Mr Nicholls and the state LNP have committed to focusing on six key drivers to drive jobs and diversity in the economy: tourism, agriculture, resources, construction and manufacturing, science and technology, and education.
It is the state LNP that clearly has a plan for the future, not one working off some arbitrary ideology of politics that delivers no real outcomes for Queenslanders. Compounding this, we at a federal level are seeking to support jobseekers in Queensland. Our tax cuts for the small business sector are specifically aimed at helping drive down unemployment figures in local communities and at giving employers the confidence they need to take on new and well trained staff. We are committed to creating job opportunities in Queensland but we cannot continue to be hamstrung by the Palaszczuk state Labor government, a government that continues to promise a whole lot and deliver a whole lot less.
Queenslanders are crying out for leadership on this issue. I call on the Queensland state government to cease its hollow arguments on job creation, to stop the dithering and the debating, and to actually start working to create and provide employment opportunities in our great state of Queensland.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:49): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (12:49): It beggars belief that the member for Forde thinks this is a smart strategy, coming into this place. Of all the things he could talk about, I know he does not want to talk about cutting penalty rates. I know he does not want to talk about cutting health and education services in his electorate. I know he does not want to talk about how he has cut the energy supplement for the pensioners in his electorate. So what is the go? He gets a phone call from the leader of the opposition's office in Brisbane that says, 'Member for Forde, we need your help.' Do not take my word for it. This is their current Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Tim Nicholls, of whom Senator Brandis said off microphone that the problem with him is that he is very, very ordinary. They are your words.
So the old member for Forde rolls in here. What did they say about the budget in the member for Forde's electorate just last week? 'Budget bonanza'. That is in his own local paper. There he goes, scurrying out of the chamber. He is afraid to hear the debate. Having done the LNP dirty work in this place, he runs out of the chamber. The paper says:
LOGAN was well looked after in Treasurer Curtis Pitt's third Budget with the city getting nearly $900 million in funding …
So it is such a bad budget his own local paper calls it a budget bonanza.
But let's just deal with this unemployment nonsense. Let's put it on the table. When the LNP left office under Campbell Newman—they do not mention his name anymore—the unemployment rate in Queensland was 7.1 per cent. It actually grew to one of the highest in Australia. Let's remember what the member for Fisher and the member for Fairfax aided and abetted when they were campaigning out there for Campbell Newman: 14,000 public servants ripped out of their employment. We know what happened: unemployment did not just go up and up but went to an 11-year high. Electricity prices did not just go up but went up by 43 per cent. Waiting lists went up. One hundred thousand people were left waiting in the waiting rooms of hospitals. This was before the member for Farrer ripped out $10 billion from Queensland hospitals.
This is what happens over and over again when it comes to frontline services and looking at employment, and also the dignity. Who can forget what the LNP said when they sacked people? The then Premier, a failed Premier, said, 'We're going to have to get the Pooper Scooper out.' That is how he described public servants, and the LNP absolutely relished it. It was not good enough only to sell off our essential assets. Then who can forget last week? I take the point made by the member for Forde when he was talking about the member for Clayfield's speech last week about the budget. They have now committed to not sack public servants. They have now signed another contract. Well, the member for Clayfield is a lawyer. He should be sued, because he signed the first contract. Remember that, before the election? 'Public servants have got nothing to worry about.' The first thing they did under that failed experiment of Campbell Newman, an absolute failure, was to sack frontline nurses and hospital workers, and they were proud of it. They thought it was the right decision. I will tell you what they also did in my electorate: they closed the Barrett Adolescent Centre without any consultation. They closed a youth support hospital for young people most at risk, and we know the tragic, tragic results of closing that frontline service.
The Palaszczuk Labor government is a government that believes in the dignity of work. It does not throw people on the scrap heap. It does not just sack people by text message. That is the LNP's record in Queensland, and they have the gall to come in here. Under their watch, we saw the loss of 12,900 full-time jobs, and the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 7.1 per cent. Unemployment in Queensland is too high. The government know that, and they are working day in, day out to make sure that there are jobs—jobs for the future, jobs in the regions and jobs in places like Townsville. It was the state Labor government and the federal Labor opposition, under the leadership of the member for Herbert, which delivered the announcement and now the reality of a Townsville stadium. If it had not been for that advocacy and that leadership, once again, the regions would be neglected by this government. We know that right across the state, whether it comes to employment or to health and education services, Queenslanders can only rely on a state Labor government under Annastacia Palaszczuk's leadership.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:54): I rise today in support of the motion moved by my learned friend. This is like a tale of two cities—a tale of two budgets. The Queensland government handed down its budget just last week. I note that the member for Oxley, whilst using a prop of a newspaper, talked about a jobs bonanza for Logan. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no such newspaper front page on the Sunshine Coast Daily. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Those opposite and the state members of the Labor Party do not care about the Sunshine Coast.
Let me talk a little bit about the two budgets in comparison. Let's look at the federal budget. It is all about jobs. The federal budget for the Sunshine Coast provided a $929.3 million upgrade between Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway. That is an 80-20 split; I will give them that much. We also provided $650 million in highway upgrades south of Caloundra. Interestingly, the state Labor Party did not provide a brass razoo for upgrades to the Bruce Highway south of Caloundra. There was no mention, no nothing!
A government member: Their heads are down now! Look at their heads, they are down!
Mr WALLACE: Funny about that, isn't it? On our side of the fence we also provided $182.6 million for critical safety upgrades, and another $221 million has been invested in high-risk rural parts of the highway.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I am having trouble hearing the debate here.
Mr WALLACE: I am having trouble hearing myself. There is $180 million for works at the Nambour roundabout. There is a total of $1.6 billion that the federal government is spending on the Bruce Highway in my neck of the woods and the neck of the woods of the member for Fairfax. We have also committed to a $10 billion National Rail Program.
We are supporting small businesses. We have extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off, we have provided $300 million to incentivise the cutting of red tape and we have provided a tax cut to small businesses of 27½ per cent. We are also supporting education because education delivers the jobs of the future. The federal government has committed $266 million extra over 10 years for schools in Fisher. It is an average of $7½ million per school. That is not to mention the $5 million commitment for the Thompson Institute in my seat of Fisher for research into mental health. I know the other side will not give that a hard time; I am sure they will be supporting that.
Let's look at the Queensland budget: zero for the rail duplication between Beerburrum and Nambour, zero for the Bruce Highway south of Caloundra and zero for the Mooloolah River interchange. There is no new money for the Sunshine Motorway north of Pacific Paradise and no new money for the Bruce Highway between Caloundra Road and the Sunshine Motorway. The allocation for capital purchases for the whole region was worse than inner Brisbane alone or in Ipswich, Darling Downs, Gold Coast, Townsville or Fitzroy. The Sunshine Coast got left behind.
Today I notice that the Minister for Main Roads, Road Safety and Ports, Mark Bailey, has put out an announcement. Despite the fact that the budget was announced last week, today he comes out and says, 'Okay, yes, we will fund the upgrade of the Bruce Highway—the 20 per cent south of Caloundra.' Nowhere is that stated in the budget papers. They have just plucked this money out of nowhere. They have made an announcement now only because of the good works of the member for Fairfax, the member for Wide Bay and myself. We have shamed the Labor government into finally providing the upgrades south of Caloundra.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, robust debate is always welcome in the chamber, but I need to be able to follow it as well.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (12:59): I rise in this place today to ask the member for Forde a really simple question: is this motion a joke? Surely he has got to be kidding. He is a member of the Turnbull government, a government that has not delivered one cent north of Brisbane in the budget. Does the member for Forde not realise that the state of Queensland expands beyond the south-east golden triangle of Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast? The Labor state government does. Does the member for Forde realise that the federal government has done nothing for North Queensland?
He is a member of the Turnbull government, the government that announced the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility more than two years ago and still has not delivered one single project. In fact, at this point of time, in the northern part of the country, we have renamed it the 'no actual infrastructure fund'. The member for Forde is a member of the government that announced the CRC in Townsville more than a year ago. According to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, the CRC was due to be up and running in mid-2016. Well, it is mid-2017 and there is still nothing.
The member for Forde is a member of such an out-of-touch Turnbull government that he would rather give a $65 billion tax cut to big businesses and make someone earning $55,000 pay an extra $275 in tax. The member for Forde is a member of such a disgraceful government that he supports $22 billion cuts in education and $2.2 billion cuts in health. This is the government that the member for Forde belongs to, and this is the unfair lack of attention to the North Queensland budget that the member for Forde has supported—an out-of-touch, disgraceful Turnbull government budget.
And then there are the massive cuts to infrastructure. In the current financial year alone, the member for Forde and his government have cut infrastructure funding by $1.6 billion, and then funding continues to drop off a cliff over the next four years. By 2021, the infrastructure spend will have dropped by $3.4 billion. And guess which state bears the brunt of most of the Turnbull government cuts? No other than the member for Forde's own state, Queensland. Almost a quarter, 21 per cent, of infrastructure fund cuts in 2016-17 are in Queensland. Of the $1.6 billion cuts to the national infrastructure, more than $345 million of those cuts go to Queensland. At budget time last year, Queensland was promised $2.2 billion in infrastructure funding. However, we will only receive $1.8 billion.
This government has not been up-front with Queenslanders. It has cut funding for fixing dangerous blackspots on local roads—$17.3 million. It has cut funding for major road upgrades—$276.5 million. It has cut funding for upgrading the roads that the cattle industry relies on by $20.2 million. It has cut funding for upgrading roads that connect communities and regional towns across Northern Queensland by $50.7 million. And, for the poor old Bruce Highway, the Turnbull government has not invested one extra dollar. In fact, the government will spend $6.1 million less on the Bruce Highway next year than this year.
If the member for Forde wants to talk about jobs for Queensland, you do not create jobs by slashing over $345 million from infrastructure. The absolute nerve of the member for Forde! For him to stand here in this place and talk about jobs in Queensland is an absolute joke. For the electorate of Herbert, it is like rubbing salt into open wounds, because, under the member for Forde's government, the Abbott-Turnbull government, unemployment in Townsville has almost doubled. And this government has handed down a budget that does not even mention Herbert or North Queensland.
Let us compare and contrast. The Queensland Labor budget delivered $623 million for Herbert alone; the Turnbull government, $345 million in cuts. The Queensland Labor budget has $935.9 million for the Townsville Health and Hospital Service; the LNP government has $2.2 billion in cuts to health and hospitals nationally. The Queensland Labor government has $225 billion for water security infrastructure; the Turnbull government has delivered nothing to address water issues in the north. The Queensland Labor government has $100 million for hydropower on the Burdekin Falls Dam; the Turnbull government has nothing to address our energy issues.
So it is very clear who is backing North Queensland. It is clear who is actually delivering funds for North Queensland. And it is very clear that only one party ever has delivered and ever will deliver for jobs in the north, and that is the Labor Party. The member for Forde's motion just speaks to his jealousy that he was not able to deliver a budget for Queensland and Labor was.
If you want to know what the people on the ground think in Queensland, you only need to compare and contrast the front pages of the Townsville Bulletin. The front page after the Turnbull budget depicted Senator 'gold card' Ian Macdonald, 'not sure' what the people wanted in the budget, whereas after the Queensland Labor budget we saw a Premier with a money hose. Labor will deliver for the north, and Labor will deliver for Queensland.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:04): For the five minutes that I listened to the member for Herbert speak, she only gave less than 30 seconds to talk about the topic—which is, of course, the Queensland Labor government. There is one thing worse than being spoken of in politics when you are leading—that is, in fact, when no-one says anything about you at all. If you have members of the Labor Party in such denial that they do not even want to speak about their government other than having some fake rubbery numbers of comparison, it says it all. The member for Herbert tried to base her entire argument on this myth that the Turnbull federal government has not funded anything north of Brisbane. 'Nothing north of Brisbane' is her claim, and yet we heard just previously from the member for Fisher that $1.6 billion is being spent on the Bruce Highway alone. We have $929 million, the sod turned and already under construction, on the section between the Caloundra Road turn-off and the Sunshine Motorway. We have $187 million around the Maroochydore interchange—80 per cent funded by the federal coalition government—and a $181 million concessional loan to the Sunshine Coast Airport. These are big licks of money for major infrastructure, despite what the member for Herbert suggested—yes, north of Brisbane and, yes, by the coalition.
The member for Oxley, of course, after his very longwinded whine about all things wrong, to his credit, conceded that unemployment is too high in Queensland. But his only answer was more jobs for public servants—15,000 jobs created already over two years, and big-government Labor's only solution to unemployment in Queensland is—guess what?—more public servants. Where are these public servants going? You bet, right into metropolitan capital city Brisbane. It is typical of the Labor Party because they have to look after their union mates where some of their people are under threat of losing their seats. They are coming under attack from the Greens. That is why you see in this last budget nothing to do with regional and rural Queensland and creating jobs, but looking after two jobs—that is, of the Deputy Premier, Jackie Trad, and of Grace Grace. All of this is a robust budget for the jobs of those in the Labor Party.
Queensland ought to be the powerhouse of job creation. We should be, but if you look at the latest data, only South Australia had a higher unemployment rate, of 7.1 per cent to Queensland's 6.3 per cent. A decade ago that would have been absolutely unthinkable—impossible—but today that is the case. Last month, even Tasmania, at 5.9 per cent, was performing better than Queensland and we were considerably worse than the national average of 5.7 per cent. The stats show that in May 2016 unemployment was 6.4 per cent. Go back another year, May 2015, unemployment was 6.4 per cent. Today, we have 6.3 per cent—in other words, nothing has happened under the Labor government. The state has lost over 38,000 jobs in the year to February alone, more than any other state, and yet the Labor Party suggests that this Queensland Labor government is about jobs. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book. They announce a budget and they call it a 'jobs' budget, because 'if we package it up and give it a title of jobs, people might actually believe that we are helping to create jobs.' Well, they are not.'
If we look to where the future is going, the Palaszczuk government is approaching $80 billion in debt. They might claim to be paying some of that off but all they are doing is shuffling it around. They are throwing it into state owned enterprises, especially in the power sector. Who loses as a result of this? The huge dividends they are ripping out of that sector are resulting in higher electricity prices for everyday Queenslanders, the very Queenslanders who, due to this Labor state government, do not have jobs. So they do not give them jobs, do not give them investment and do not give them infrastructure but rip out the dividends that increase electricity prices. That is the Queensland state Labor government.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (13:09): I have to say that this is a motion which is so stupid that it is only rivalled for stupidity by the motion moved by the member for Fairfax earlier today about energy prices. How silly would you have to be as a Liberal or National member of this place to move a motion attacking the Queensland Labor government over energy prices, when the annual bill increase in Queensland has been 1.9 per cent for a typical household, whereas under the Liberal-National government in the last term of parliament in Queensland there was a 43 per cent increase in power prices for a typical household over that period? Talk about leading with your chin. I don't know whether this is a strategy or just complete foolishness on the part of the Liberal-National party, but I suspect it is the latter, because if it is a strategy it is a very, very subtle and obscure one.
Here we have a motion from the member for Forde, seeking to attack the Palaszczuk Labor government in relation to jobs. Let us have a talk about the state LNP's track record on jobs in Queensland. When they came to office in March 2012, trend unemployment in Queensland was 5½ per cent. When they left office it was 6.6 per cent. In fact, while they were in for that one, sole, lonely term of government in Queensland from 2012 to 2015, with Tim Nicholls as Treasurer, the jobless rate hit a high of 7.1 per cent. That is what Tim Nicholls did to unemployment in Queensland when he was the state's Treasurer for the LNP government. The LNP managed to get unemployment to 7.1 per cent. And they want to come into the federal parliament and move a motion about jobs in Queensland under the Palaszczuk Labor government? It is utterly ridiculous and another example of leading with your chin.
Let me remind the House what the Newman government—the Campbell Newman-Tim Nicholls government—did to jobs in Queensland. They sacked tens of thousands of public servants. We have just heard the member for Fairfax bashing public servants, pooh-poohing the idea that you might want to hire public servants, as though he does not have public servants living in his own electorate, who would be very disappointed to hear the way he has disrespected and dismissed them, and as though he does not understand that amongst those public servants that are being hired by the Queensland government are teachers, nurses and police officers.
Very interestingly, the Queensland Labor government has just announced that teacher aides will go into prep classes to support teachers, to help improve education. Thank God someone is doing that. Thank God someone in Queensland is investing in education, because the Turnbull Liberal government is not investing in education. We are seeing a $22 billion cut to schools funding across this country by the Turnbull Liberal-National government. That is what we are seeing. The LNP opposition in Queensland will do nothing if they are elected at the election in Queensland but be a complete lap dog for Malcolm Turnbull and for the Turnbull Liberal-National government here in Canberra. That is what they will do. They will not be standing up against the Liberals and Nationals in Canberra, saying, 'No, we want our fair share for the state.' They will not be standing up for their fair share for education. They certainly will not be investing in education, like the Palaszczuk government is doing in Queensland at this very time, and not just the teacher aide funds: there is $500 million for two new high schools, including one in my electorate, which is sorely needed.
That is what Labor will do in Queensland, but what will the Liberals and Nationals do? We just heard the member for Fairfax belling the cat. They will go back to their old plans of slashing the public service and privatising everything. You talk about a six-pillar strategy. Their six pillars are sell it off, sell it off, sell it off, sell it off, sell it off, sell it off. But Labor does not stand for that.
Under the LNP in Queensland, in their last term of government, we saw a fall of 12,900 people in full-time employment—380 jobs a month. During the LNP government's term in Queensland, 30,000 more Queenslanders were thrown onto the unemployment queue. The LNP had no plan then for dealing with unemployment, just a plan for selling off assets—and nothing has changed. They abolished Skilling Queenslanders for Work. What is the contrast with the Labor government in Queensland? We have backed in Back to Work in the regions, a $150 million regional Queensland program aimed at getting Queenslanders back into work, and a new program in the south-east with $27½ million for the same purpose. We are the only party who will stand up for jobs in Queensland. The LNP will not stand up for jobs in Queensland.
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.
Cross River Rail Project
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (13:15): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the 2017 budget has ignored Queenslanders' calls for funding of the Cross River Rail (CRR) project;
(2) recognises that the:
(a) CRR project is urgently needed to keep pace with Brisbane's growing population;
(b) existing rail crossing over the Brisbane River in the CBD, the Merivale Bridge, is approaching full capacity; and
(c) CRR was declared ready to go by the independent experts at Infrastructure Australia in 2012; and
(3) acknowledges that the former Government allocated funding to the CRR project in its 2013 budget, only to have the current Government scrap the investment in its 2014 budget.
The biggest news out of the Queensland state budget is that the Palaszczuk government is building the Cross River Rail. I know there is a bit of competition for the biggest news. I just left a Friends of Tourism event here in Canberra, where there was a lot of enthusiasm and buzz in the room for the $176 million that is going up north to the Cairns Convention Centre. We had the member for Herbert in here today talking about the investment that the Queensland government is making in Townsville and the surrounding regions. But for me, the biggest news is Cross River Rail because, as the member for Griffith on the south side in Brisbane, I am very excited that finally someone is actually taking the bull by the horns and funding this incredibly important Cross River Rail project, which will help improve public transport and get more cars off the road. Whether you live in Wynnum, whether you live in Cleveland, it will get more cars off the road on your commute into the CBD.
The Palaszczuk Labor government—and fair play to them—were utterly sick of the Turnbull government for failing to fund this project. The Turnbull government and the LNP have failed Queensland repeatedly, so now the Queensland government has been forced to go it alone. But the best news of all on the Cross River Rail is that the Queensland government are going to start building this year. Thanks to this project, south side residents will save up to 14 minutes travelling to the city on the Cleveland line. It is a city-shaping project that is 10 years in the making and finally it will be delivered by the Palaszczuk Labor government.
There is no question the Prime Minister has let Queensland down by refusing to fund our No. 1 infrastructure priority. Cross River Rail is the key to transforming the public transport network, and the benefits will go far beyond the inner city. It will give us more frequent and reliable public transport options and it will create 1,500 jobs each year of construction as the project ramps up. It will also take around 18,500 car trips off the road each and every day, reducing congestion on our roads and ensuring that everyone can spend more time with their family and friends, and less time sitting in traffic.
Since the now Prime Minister ousted the member for Warringah to become the Prime Minister, he has sought to portray himself as a public transport enthusiast by staging frequent media stunts—a selfie on a train. I just think that is really patronising and disingenuous from a Prime Minister who had come from a government that had taken money off the table for Cross River Rail. This year's federal budget was this Prime Minister's chance not to just take those selfies but to actually do something, to invest in Cross River Rail to alleviate the congestion that threatens continued economic growth in Queensland. But once again we saw no action from the Turnbull government. This is how disingenuous they are: the Treasurer actually stood up and said that there would 'potentially' be funding for Cross River Rail—potentially. What was in the budget? Nothing was in the budget. Do not try to give you the impression you are funding Cross River Rail when you are not funding Cross River Rail; it is pretty simple, Treasurer.
The existing Merivale Bridge across the Brisbane River in CBD is approaching full capacity. I have lost count of the number of times Anthony Albanese, shadow minister for infrastructure, and I have stood up and given press conferences on the Brisbane River insisting on the funding for Cross River Rail. Without a second rail crossing, Brisbane's economic growth will actually be impacted significantly and so will Brisbane's capacity to create the jobs that will be needed for the future.
Infrastructure Australia approved Cross River Rail in 2012. It was funded by the former Labor federal government in 2013 under an arrangement that included elements of value capture. But the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, took the money off the table from the feds after the Liberals and Nationals won the 2013 federal election.
Ever since, the now Prime Minister has stalled on committing investment, and is now continuing to stall by creating this new IFU—the infrastructure financing unit; what a waste of time—within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which will sideline infrastructure Australia. IA is an independent body, not a body within Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is a body intended to take the politics out of infrastructure. It will also sideline the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. And it is all completely unnecessary.
By increasing the capacity of the rail network, Cross River Rail will not only benefit my suburbs in Griffith and the suburbs in suburban Brisbane; it will also benefit the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. The project is ready to go. It is time that the Prime Minister stopped stalling, got his act together and made some commitments. It is very unfortunate the Queensland Labor government is having to deliver this project by going it alone. This federal government should be ashamed of its failure to invest in this important economic infrastructure for our state.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (13:20): I second the motion.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:20): Here we go again, the Labor Party at every level is calling on more money so that inner-city seats relying on green votes can get a nice trip to work. Before I speak about this, I would like to point out some details to our colleagues on the other side of the room. It seems that even those who live in Queensland have forgotten a few things.
Brisbane is a city in Queensland that makes up a total of 0.9 per cent of Queensland's total land area. More than half of Queensland's population lives outside of the greater metropolitan area of Brisbane. That is a larger proportion compared with the rest of highly urbanised Australia. Coal royalties paid to the Queensland government are forecast to contribute almost $3 billion this year; 39 per cent of that coal comes from my electorate of Capricornia. Let's repeat that: Central Queensland is contributing a total of $1.17 billion in coal royalties to the Queensland budget. Why is any of this relevant? I say this because now the very people who have lobbied time and time again to stop the production of coal now want to use the royalties from that very coal to build a nice train line.
They want the sweat and tears of my electorate to keep supplying them with the lifestyles they are accustomed to. How dare you! How dare you stand there and say the people of inner-city Brisbane need a better train line to get to work. Here is a thought: how about instead of using a band-aid solution to fix growing congestion in Brisbane, get behind projects that would provide jobs in the region so they will not have to move away in the first place.
Just last week, REIQ revealed statistics showing that 3,500 people had left the Fitzroy catchment area in the last year alone. They are leaving because there are no job opportunities. You sit there and cry poor because your rail line is at capacity. Our Central Queensland region would be glad to have anything operating at capacity. The Queensland Labor government had an ideal opportunity to fix the mistakes of the past with assets sales in last week's budget. They had an opportunity to create real and meaningful jobs for Central Queensland in the budget. Central Queensland has become 'Division 9' to the capital, Brisbane. The working people of my electorate contribute to your Hunger Games. In fact, the Queensland Treasurer has stated that 15,300 additional bureaucrats will be employed over the next four years.
The state government has no decentralisation agenda, so these jobs are just going to end up back in Brisbane not with the people of Central Queensland. If we want real long-term employment, we need a state government willing to invest in industry, development and infrastructure. They give us a list of 31 things in the budget and act as if Central Queensland should be grateful! Should we be grateful for the 22,000 jobs that will be given to 15,600 inner-city bureaucrats? They are the ones who should show some gratitude that the coal revenue from Central Queensland has balanced the budget so that inner-city greens can take a nice train ride to their secure inner-city job while tapping away at their tablets, which are also made from mining.
But, no, the Labor Party will keep bowing to the hypocrisy, with no pathway to actually help workers. They want to keep the regions poor; they want to keep the people poor. Then they will ride in on their fast train and tell the working poor that we are not doing enough to help them. Here's a thought: how about we reduce the need in the first place by actually creating real and ongoing employment in the regions, particularly in my seat of Capricornia? Instead of crying poor over your train, how about you give a thought to the people who get nothing for the hard work that makes the city jobs possible?
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (13:25): I am proud to support the motion by the member for Griffith, a strong female Queenslander following in the tradition of Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad, who are doing their bit for Queensland. It is nice to have women from Queensland who actually understand what jobs mean. The Queensland Labor government are a team prepared to stand up for Queensland, not bury their heads in the sand like we have heard from those opposite; the Prime Minister, from New South Wales; and the Deputy Prime Minister, who deserted Queensland for New South Wales. The one-time Queenslander has gone missing in Queensland. He seems to be only concerned with ruining the APVMA with a strong flavour of pork. The one-time public-transport aficionado, Prime Minister Turnbull, is taking Queensland for granted, as we heard in the member for Griffith's motion. He is a bloke who is happy to annually catch his favourite 389 bus route in Sydney but will do nothing for Queenslanders who use public transport every single day.
The existing inner-city rail crossing over the Brisbane River, the Merivale Bridge, is at full capacity. We all know that. Prime Minister Turnbull knows it too, but he continues to ignore this fact. The four stations that are linked to it that are common across the entire train network—the Roma Street, Central, Fortitude Valley and Bowen Hills stations—are causing bottlenecks and scheduling nightmares.
The Cross River Rail was declared ready to go by the independent experts at Infrastructure Australia in 2012. It was the No. 1 project. The former Labor federal government allocated funding for Cross River Rail in our 2013 budget. It was supported by the then Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Scott Emerson, who was ready to go and stand alongside our Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, at a press conference at Kangaroo Point, until it was cancelled by Campbell Newman. We still have the letter that Scott Emerson wrote.
Thankfully for Queenslanders, we now have a state Labor government who allocated in their budget $2.8 billion over the forward estimates to get Cross River Rail moving. In Queensland, our Labor government are committed to fully funding Cross River Rail to ensure that this critical project is built to drive growth across our whole economy. This commitment to advance Queensland includes an additional $2.6 billion over future budgets to complete the project.
The Turnbull government have had four years to stand up for Queensland. They are about to enter their fifth year of government. Frankly, Queenslanders are sick of the federal Liberal and National Party government failing our state. That is why Annastacia Palaszczuk and her team went it alone.
What do southsiders, particularly those who live in Moreton, have to look forward to? It will alleviate the bottleneck at Merivale Bridge and the four inner-city stations from Roma Street to Bowen Hills, and it will deliver an additional 19,000 public transport seats during peak hours. Of these extra seats, 11,800 will help travellers in Moreton. That is 8,600 seats for those who travel from the southside down to Beenleigh—through the member for Forde's electorate on the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines—and 3,200 for those who travel from the west on the Ipswich and Springfield lines. Thanks to Cross River Rail, customers travelling on the Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines to the CBD will save, on average, 15 minutes in their commutes, and the Ipswich line people will save an average of four minutes every journey.
With these additional services and capacities benefiting people in the electorates of Forde, Rankin and Moreton, travellers from all the way down to the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines will see an average of one train every 10 minutes, and commuters from the west on the Ipswich line will see one train every six minutes during peak times. Every single day, locals will reap the benefits of Queensland Labor investing in this project.
It also means that the public transport network will take 18,500 cars off main roads. That will help the Ipswich Motorway, Ipswich Road in my electorate, Beaudesert Road and the Pacific Motorway as well. And there will be jobs—we are the Labor Party; we believe in jobs—with 1,500 new jobs each and every year for Queenslanders. This is nation-building infrastructure that Infrastructure Australia recognised and the Palaszczuk government recognised. This will be a boost to the tune of $70 billion to the Queensland economy at a time when we need it most.
Sadly, the Liberal and National parties do not have the vision. They have all the vision of a caravan site when it comes to infrastructure, doing the right thing by our economy and investing in productivity. So I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party, a party that will always fight for Queensland, a party that works every day to advance Queensland. The Labor Party started in Queensland, and we will always do our best to protect our state. I commend this motion from the member for Griffith, and I look forward to joining southside locals on their faster, easier and more reliable public transport on our public transport network.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The time being 1.30, the time allotted for this debate has now expired. We need to adjourn the debate for the next item of business on the agenda.
Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00
Interpreting and Translating Industry
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (16:00): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the important and vital role played by professional interpreters and translators in Australia;
(2) notes that:
(a) Australia has been at the forefront of the provision of language services since the late 1970s, becoming one of the first countries in the world to mandate and subsidise the use of interpreters and translators for all people whose first language is not English when accessing public services; and
(b) the provision of regulated and accredited language services is fundamental to enabling people whose first language is not English to fully participate in society and Australia;
(3) notes and commends the professionalism and ethical behaviour of National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters accredited interpreters and translators, and the important contribution of their work to our country's social cohesion; and
(4) acknowledges the importance of supporting the interpreting and translating industry and practitioners through appropriate training, professional development, regulation, recognition and remuneration.
Interpreting and translating are one of the world's oldest professions, and it is a most essential profession. Anyone who has found themselves in difficulty in a country whose language they do not speak knows just how scary and confronting that is and how powerless that can make you feel. I feel it is particularly fitting that we are talking about this now, this being the week that we celebrate Refugee Week. This is an important chance to recognise also the amazing contribution that refugees make to this country.
A vital part in helping refugees and indeed all migrants feel welcome in this country is the help that they receive in navigating new systems, new rules and new services. Interpreters and translators play an important part in this. What is more, access to an interpreter to facilitate communication can literally make the difference between life and death. Just think about a patient in hospital who needs to understand essential instructions from a doctor or provide consent to treatment and about the devastating implications it can have if the instructions are misunderstood. I met a woman a few years back. She has passed away now. She was then in her early 90s. She came out to Australia from Greece at the age of 18 in the early 1900s. She had one daughter, and I remember saying to her in a conversation: 'Why one daughter? You didn't have a second child.' She said: 'Well, I had great difficulty giving birth with the first child. I had an operation and lots and lots of things, and I kept on trying. We kept on trying for a second child for many, many years, and it wasn't until I was in my late 30s, when I went to a doctor, that I was told that I'd had a hysterectomy in that operation back when I had my first child.' She had no idea because there were no interpreters. Her English language was non-existent. That is a really sad case.
These things used to happen regularly here in Australia, and we are very fortunate that we have a policy that ensures that anyone accessing government and legal services in this country whose first language is not English is guaranteed an interpreter free of charge. This is an excellent policy that should be supported. As I said, it has not always been the case—I have just described that very sad story—and it was not the case until the early seventies. Australia's policy of assimilation meant that, if you decided to come here, it was up to you to become an Australian and learn English, and translators were something that did not exist. That failed to take into account factors such as people having to work to make a living and having no time to learn English as well. My parents were in that situation. Their English was communication English and still is today.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr GEORGANAS: Yes, and they became citizens back in the fifties, a long time ago.
We can thank the Whitlam government and, in general, the adoption of multiculturalism—with Fraser, of course, as well—for the growth of the interpreting and translating industry. A pivotal moment in the profession was the establishment of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters in 1977 and the introduction of accreditation and testing for different levels of interpreters and translators. This was an important step in regulating the service and the industry.
Today there are thousands of interpreters and translators working around the country. I would like to take a moment just to thank them for providing these essential services. I thank them for their professionalism, their commitment and their ethics. Having elderly parents myself whose first language is Greek, I have been exposed to a number of interpreters over the years. Recently my mother has been ill, and even though her English skills are quite good and she can communicate, when it comes to doctors and specialists it is good to err on the side of being absolutely sure that she understands everything. So we arranged an interpreter for her, and I went along as well. I would like to thank Dennis Dellis, who was absolutely fantastic, for his help and the reassurance he provided my mother during that very difficult time. He was wonderful. Every interpreter I have dealt with has been just like him—wonderful people.
Interpreters and translators are needed today more than ever. According to the 2011 census, there are more than three million people in Australia who speak a language other than English. But, despite much advancement in the profession, we have an obligation as MPs to ensure that there is adequate training available for interpreters and translators, appropriate regulation and fair and just remuneration. Interpreters and translators often work in stressful and demanding conditions, often when their clients are facing very, very difficult moments. Their work and their skills deserve our respect and our recognition.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Dr ALY (Cowan) (16:04): I second the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Cowan.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (16:04): I might start by first of all congratulating my colleague, the member for Hindmarsh, for bringing forward this motion and recognising the important and vital role played by professional interpreters and translators. I might also acknowledge the work of the NAATI—the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters; and, in Western Australia, WAITI—the Western Australian Institute of Translators and Interpreters, particularly Ms Heather Glass, a formidable force in translating and interpreting and in ensuring that the profession is up to scratch and up to standard.
When we talk about professional translating and interpreting services, it is important that we ensure that those services are available in the community languages that people most need. There are 74 courses for translators and interpreters that are approved by NAATI, 67 of which are delivering training in Chinese and Mandarin, and 10 are delivering training in Hindi, Nepali and Bangla. It is not statistically possible to separate translator or interpreter need by language, and that is because the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, or ANZSCO, does not distinguish between languages. Hence, even though there is no shortage of Chinese and Mandarin translators and interpreters, there is a huge need in other multiple languages, but these statistics do not reflect that.
Qualifications delivered are typically the Diploma of Interpreting and the Advanced Diploma of Translating. However, research in Western Australia has shown that the domestic translating and interpreting industry has a dearth of paraprofessional accredited interpreters and professional accredited translators, although we have a huge demand for professional interpreter accreditation. Clearly, that demand is not being met by the current way the system is set up. Just before Christmas the federal Department of Education and Training announced a list of qualifications that would be included in the new legislation for VET loans. The department gave the industry a token two-week consultation period, and that list proceeded to legislation as drafted.
Under the new legislation, the diplomas of interpreting and translating and the Advanced Diploma of Translating are all eligible for VET loans, but the Advanced Diploma of Interpreting—the one that we need qualifications in, the one that we need professionals and paraprofessionals in—is not. The qualifications that will, therefore, attract VET loans are those applicable to the migration market and not to the domestic market, not to the domestic need—the community languages that are most in need. This is of utmost importance, because it is important that people are given access to accredited and professional translator and interpreting services as they need them.
I want to share with you a story that I heard some time ago about a woman from Afghanistan who gave birth at one of Perth's larger hospitals. After several days the staff there noticed that she was not eating. They eventually brought in an interpreter and they found out that this woman was not eating because she thought she had to pay for the food. She had not eaten anything for several days because she thought she had to pay for the food, and she could not afford it. That was because they did not have an accredited interpreter in her community language available to her upon her entry into the hospital—it took several days for them to get a community language interpreter in that specific language of Dari to talk to her and to realise that that was the reason why she was not eating. That is just an example, along with the example that my colleague, the member for Hindmarsh, gave, of just how important it is to have professional accredited interpreters and translators available to people for health reasons, when they are dealing with the law and when they are dealing with those situations where they need to access services and need to have professional accredited translators and interpreters available.
When I was working for state government I developed the language services policy, which set out a procedure for all government agencies to ensure that they use accredited translators and interpreters because, in some cases, children were being used. Children were being used to interpret confidential medical information for their parents, and that is just not on. Unfortunately, the Western Australian Liberal government stopped using the language services policy but, hopefully, we can bring that back in, because Labor recognises just how important that is.
In closing, I would urge the government to look into the issues I have raised here around the provision of a quality framework for translating and interpreting that is responsive to domestic need, because without that we will continue to hear stories such as those I have just related, and the member for Hindmarsh has related.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (16:10): I am delighted to rise to speak on this motion. I represent the electorate in parliament with the highest percentage of first generation migrants born in another country, an electorate where for 56 per cent of people, when they shut the front door at night, their preferred language is not English. Conversely, only 44 per cent of people speak English at home in my electorate. So, day to day, the role of professional interpreters and translators in my community is absolutely critical. I can see the government showing its care for this issue by the number of speakers listed, which I think is zero.
It is an important motion in its own right for some of the reasons touched on, and which I will expand on. It is also particularly timely given English and foreign languages are a topic of debate today given the government's changes to English language requirements for citizenship—these extreme changes to require university standard English to become a citizen. As we have said, it is ridiculous, it is unnecessary, it is snobbery given conversational English has served Australia well for decades and the citizenship test is already in English. As we have also said, it is a stunt, it is political and it is part of the immigration minister's leadership campaign: to pick an impossible test that sounds good and looks tough. But that is a debate for later. It is an irony and a shame though, because millions of Australians would not pass that IELTS 6 test. They would not pass it, including, dare I say, some members of this House. I think the Deputy Prime Minister in question time regularly needs a professional translator and interpreter because we cannot understand what he is saying—and allegedly he is speaking English!
There are circumstances where people need professional interpreters. As has been mentioned, legal situations—and this is not even Australian citizens; this stuff is critical to facilitate economic trade, development, business and commerce. As we talk about finding our way in the Asian century, having professional, experienced international UN level 4 and 5 translators able to negotiate multibillion-dollar contracts is key. So this is not just for community social cohesion; it is actually critical for our economy.
The member for Cowan has outlined the health situation. In the case of older people who may have good English, it is a fact of life when you age that your English language skills, your second and third language skills, tend to deteriorate and so when you need to deal in complex matters, then professional interpreters and translators are particularly critical. And I have also seen far too many situations in my community where children—teenagers, school kids—are being used as the interpreters in adult situations for their families and family members for a range of reasons.
The federal government's response to that, it was one of the issues that came up during the election campaign and in the six to 12 months lead-up, is to attack and cut interpreter services. I will give the example of South East Community Links serving a large chunk of South-East Melbourne across the member for Hotham's electorate, the member for Isaacs's electorate and my electorate in particular. This service provides employment services—particularly, but not solely, focused on new migrants—financial counselling and so on. In one of the cruellest decisions of the Abbott-Turnbull Joyce-Turnbull—whatever you call them—government, they cut emergency relief funding. But not only did they cut emergency relief funding and this basic community support, they also cut access to interpreter services. These relief agencies, working with the most vulnerable people in the community, were then being forced to dip into this relief money to also pay for interpreter services. For decades it has been an understood part of the public service fabric in this country that professional standard interpreter services are not some luxury optional extra in our society; they are a critical service that needs to be provided on a universal basis for important public services.
I contrast this with the Victorian government. I saw a press release in the last few weeks that says they are now innovating in translation in health services. There have been very small but important grants provided for videoconferencing across regional areas for multicultural communities. Of course we also have tourists as visitors, so this is not only about Australian residents; it is about visitors to our country needing health services. There are grants for language services in emergency wards, where it is particularly critical that you get quick and timely information, so, again, video services are going to help. And grants for improved data systems to manage health outcomes for pregnant women.
In closing, I would acknowledge and pay tribute to those in the profession. It is not only great language skills that you need to do this but also cultural skills and cultural understanding to get the nuance and dialects in many cases. It is also a position of great trust because, when you are dealing with people in very vulnerable situations or with economically critical situations for the country or for business trading, you need to be sure that the people providing this service are of the very highest international standard.
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.
Energy
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:15): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that electricity prices affect every Australian, whether it be the price of electricity at home or the cost to businesses that will flow on to threaten jobs and business competitiveness;
(2) acknowledges that since 2009, in Queensland the average price of electricity has risen from $35 MW/H to $95.27 MW/H which is a 180 per cent increase;
(3) further acknowledges that there has been a 59 per cent increase in the last year in electricity prices;
(4) notes that electricity prices have reached record levels in Queensland, including $14,000 MW/H in January 2017;
(5) notes with concern the allegations of Rio Tinto that the Queensland Government is manipulating the electricity grid to keep prices high and increase revenue for its state owned assets; and
(6) calls for a full and transparent inquiry to be conducted into the cost of electricity in Queensland with recommendations for solutions to fix the problem.
The Labor government of Annastacia Palaszczuk in Queensland is the worst manager of an electricity grid in this country, at a huge and rapidly emerging cost to household consumers, to businesses, to the economy and to jobs. Jay Weatherill's management in South Australia is clearly awful, as repeated blackouts there have shown. You cannot have a reliable power system so heavily reliant on wind unless you have a backup, and Jay Weatherill has none, other than an extension cord over the border to a shrinking reserve supply in Victoria. Daniel Andrews's management in Victoria is woeful, as the closure of the Hazelwood power station earlier this year and the moratorium on gas exploration attest. But Ms Palaszczuk's government in Queensland is far and away the worst. Given the vast high-quality energy-producing resources available in my home state, we should have utterly reliable, affordable power in Queensland now and well into the future, but we do not, and the future is increasingly bleak.
Five years ago, the average price of power in my home state reflected the fact that its generators had access to some of the best reserves of coal and gas in the world. Power was just over $29 per megawatt hour, the second cheapest in the National Electricity Market at the time, behind only Victoria, which also has access to vast reserves of gas and to even cheaper brown coal, rather than the high-quality black coal of Queensland. Now, however, in Queensland we have the second most expensive power in the NEM, ahead of only South Australia. The average price in Queensland for 2017 to date is $93.81 per megawatt hour, down very slightly from when I worded the motion that we now address but still far and away the worst in the NEM except for the price in Jay Weatherill's state, where the average currently sits at $108.88 and is no doubt headed further north. Queensland is now also significantly worse off than New South Wales, where the average price is $81.36 for 2017 to date. We are far worse than the $74.75 in Tasmania and way behind Victoria, where the average is $65.71 but where the price will no doubt rocket as the impact of the closure of its largest generator, at Hazelwood, kicks in. It is going to be a long, hot summer in Victoria, and the price there is going to go through the roof.
The problems in South Australia and Victoria are well known, but the issue for resource-rich Queensland has to be: how has it come to this? How has the NEM state with by far the richest energy-producing resources in the market ended up with some of the highest power prices? The answer appears to be incompetence, built on greed. History shows us that standard operating procedure for Labor governments in Queensland is going backwards. Wayne Goss and Kevin Rudd corporatised the Queensland power industry and began a Labor habit of raiding the annual earnings of the industry through dividends, through income tax equivalents and through special dividends, which all ended up hurting consumers. The power system in Queensland has never really been back in equilibrium since.
The government of Annastacia Palaszczuk has continued what Wayne Goss started, which is to annually, habitually, rob the industry, with dividends charged to the generators, charged to the transmission agency, and charged to the distributors and retailers, regularly at and even beyond their annual net profits. You cannot do that to your electricity supply industry and expect it to provide cheap power. By doing that you are obviously driving prices up, and Palaszczuk's behaviour in this space over the past two to three years—the scale of the highway robbery she has been undertaking—has put Goss and subsequent Labor governments in the shade, with consumers the patsies.
In 2014-15 she hit on government owned enterprises in Queensland, including the power sector, for $10 billion. Powerlink, the transmitter of power in Queensland, had a net profit of $218.3 million for that year, and the government seized every single cent. On top of that, the government also demanded from Powerlink—via a ministerial directive, no less—a further $1.2 billion, which was paid to the Queensland Treasury Corporation to help pay down the nearly $80 billion of debt that the Palaszczuk government had racked up because it had been spending like there was no tomorrow, exactly as we have become accustomed to with Labor governments in this place.
In the 2015-16 annual report of Powerlink it was indicated that that special ministerial directive demanding $1.2 billion was a major factor in an extension to $820 million of borrowings by the agency. In other words, the $1.2 billion that the Palaszczuk government ordered Powerlink to part with in 2014-15 was a debt shuffle, for which Queenslanders will pay, one way or another, but certainly through higher transmission charges in their ever-growing power bills. The government paid down some of its debt with that cash and simply shifted the debt back to Powerlink. The end result of that is going to be obvious: even more power price increases in Queensland.
Stanwell Corporation, a big generator with multiple assets, made $161.6 million in after tax profits in 2015-16. Every cent of that went to the government as a dividend, plus a special dividend of $150 million. In the 2017-18 budget, just handed down, there were announcements that Powerlink will be hit up for another $150 million and Stanwell for a further $100 million.
This is serial madness. It is incompetence, it is greed and it is deceit. It condemns Queenslanders to higher power prices for many years to come, especially when it is combined with Labor's ideological commitment to intermittent renewable energy. Off a current base of 4½ per cent renewables, Labor wants to hit 50 per cent in Queensland by 2030, inevitably mostly from wind and solar, which it is determined to continue to heavily subsidise, as the recent budget also makes clear. The scale of that subsidy is itself frightening. The Queensland Productivity Commission estimates that the cost of the extremely generous feed-in-tariffs that the Queensland government is providing to hundreds of thousands of Queensland homes with solar panels on their roofs will cost $4.1 billion to 2028, the year the scheme ends. This explains another aspect of why my state, despite its richness in resources, has such high power prices. That subsidy, which at its peak was 44 cents per kilowatt hour, or 50 cents per kilowatt hour from at least one retailer, Energex, has simply been passed on in higher power prices to all those consumers who do not have panels on their roofs. The proof of the pain this is causing consumers is the government's response in its budget.
The government now says that it will carry the cost of that subsidy for the next three years, at a cost of around $770 million, which is, of course, another way of saying that the taxpayer will meet it—no doubt out to 2028, beyond 10 years from now, at a cost of billions. It is all about swings and roundabouts; it is smoke and mirrors. Such is the scale of the disaster of power pricing in Queensland that any full and transparent inquiry would no doubt reach the obvious conclusion that the Palaszczuk Labor government is the worst power grid manager in this country. It is worse even than Jay Weatherill in South Australia and Daniel Andrews in Victoria, and that indeed says a lot.
Mr Craig Kelly: That is a big effort.
Mr TED O'BRIEN: That is a big effort. The problem that we have always seen with Labor governments this country over, but particularly in Queensland, is that their incompetence is at times conscious incompetence. They know they are incompetent and they are happy to price gouge, to rip off consumers and rip off businesses to pay for their spending. It is ridiculous and it has to stop.
Mr Craig Kelly: I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (16:26): Well, what a ridiculous contribution from the member for Fairfax. It takes a special effort to make Clive Palmer look like a good representative for the seat of Fairfax, but he achieved it. It is also a sad indictment on his organisation that he could not even get a Queenslander to second it. I know they are in trouble tonight in the State of Origin, but they are in trouble in the Federation Chamber right now. But I have got good news for the member for Fairfax. I am a bearer of good news for once. What is the action item for this motion? It is calling for a full, independent and transparent inquiry into why the cost of electricity in Queensland has doubled. Well, I have good news for you; it has already occurred. It is called the Finkel review, which looked into why electricity prices in this country have increased so markedly over the last few years, and it has an answer. The answer from the Finkel review is this slide. This slide, that is part of the government briefing pack that went to those on the other side, shows that wholesale electricity costs have more than doubled since 2013. They have more than doubled since 2013. What has caused it?
A government member interjecting—
Mr CONROY: I have got news for you. That is post the repeal of the carbon tax. It is taking out any impact of the carbon tax. The wholesale energy price on 1 July 2014, when the carbon price was repealed, was $58. It is now $130. The cost of electricity generation in this country has more than doubled under their watch, not just in Queensland but around the country. This goes to the myth behind this whole mess.
Mr Ted O'Brien interjecting—
Mr CONROY: I have got news for you, Sunshine, Queensland is part of the National Electricity Market. So prices across the entire NEM have doubled in the last three years. And why have they doubled? Because of the uncertainty around climate change and energy policy. Do not take my word for it; I am not asking those on the other side to take my word for it. That is from the Australian Energy Council, the peak industry body for energy generators. The electricity generators have said that the cost of energy policy uncertainty in this country under their watch, under their incompetent government, is $50 a megawatt hour because of the uncertainty.
Instead of rational economic policy driving their policy and instead of rational economic theory it has been driven by the member for Hughes, the member for Warringah and all the other dinosaurs in their party room who are writing this policy. This is the nub of this debate.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Order! The member will resume his seat. I know it is a spirited debate, and the member of Shortland is an A-league interjector himself, so I am giving you plenty of rope, but keep it orderly, please.
Mr CONROY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; you are ruling with an even hand there, and I appreciate that. I am happy to take interjections because it shows just how intellectually bankrupt they are. They are intellectually bankrupt. The truth is that wholesale energy prices have doubled under their watch because they cannot arrive at a rational energy and climate change policy—and they have one in front of them right now: a clean energy target. That is not ideal from our point of view; we would prefer an emissions intensity scheme because the cost of abatement under an EIS is lower and, quite frankly, I suspect the impact on electricity prices would be greater under an EIS, but, nevertheless, we are prepared to compromise, in an effort to get a bipartisan settlement and take the politics out of this, and embrace a CET. But the Prime Minister and his minister for energy cannot get it through their party room because the member for Hughes and his allies control the party room. We saw a ridiculous party room meeting last week. With due respect to my colleague the member for Port Adelaide, over there sits the real shadow minister for energy and climate change, the member for Hughes. He led the party revolt last week in a three-hour party room meeting, where 22 speakers spoke in opposition to a clean energy target—because they are economically bankrupt. They have no idea about economic policy. They would rather go back to the glory days of the late 19th century, where we had industrialisation.
The truth is that industry desperately need policy certainty. They are crying out for policy certainty. They need a fair signal to drive investment and they have said, and the modelling confirms, that, if you have certainty, you will drive a wave of investment in the energy sector that will reduce electricity prices against a business-as-usual case. If those on the other side are really interested in getting electricity prices down—and they should be if they want to represent their communities for once—they should be embracing a clean energy target or an EIS to provide certainty to industry and let industry do what they are best at: investing in new generation around this country. But they have walked away from that.
Instead, we have this proposition that somehow the federal government is going to get into the business of building power stations in this country. That is a very suspect notion. I will be very interested to see what the Australian Energy Market Operator comes forward with at the end of the year. I know the member for Dawson is very keen for a new coal fired power station in Central Queensland or northern Queensland. That will only ever be built with billions of dollars of government subsidies—because that is what they are about over there. They are the party of subsidies. To be frank, that is the only way that a coal fired power station will ever be built in this country again. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the experts in energy forecasting, have come forward with what industry says it costs to build a new power station in this country. They have gone to the banks and the generators and said, 'What will it cost to build a new power station in this country?' What do the generators say? For coal fired power they think it would be around $130 to $150 a megawatt hour. That is what the generators are saying. What do they say about a new wind power station? It would be $55 to $60 a megawatt hour. That is what is being built right now.
Mr Craig Kelly: And the storage!
Mr CONROY: I will get to that in a minute. For large-scale PV farms, it would be about $80. We had testimony from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the government body tasked with looking at these issues, before the house energy committee. They said you look at those costs and you add on a price for storage. It is fair enough to add on a cost for storage to compare apples with apples. Guess how much it is? It is $20 a megawatt hour. So, for reliable, dispatchable wind power, with storage, you are looking at $75 to $80 a megawatt hour versus $150 for coal fired power—and that is unsubsidised. That is without a RET and without any government subsidy.
Government members interjecting—
Mr CONROY: That is without a RET. The nub of this debate is that those people on the other side are not worried about the environment—but the environment should not drive this debate; economics should drive this debate, and the economics is very clear. A new coal fired power station will not be built in this country without massive subsidies that taxpayers, working class families and pensioners in my electorate and the electorates of my colleagues over there, will pay for. Quite frankly, that is a disgrace, but it is symbolic—
A government member: And you represent the coalminers!
Mr CONROY: I proudly represent the coalmining communities. Coal has a good future in this country. Metallurgical coal will have a strong future in export and our existing thermal coal fired power stations will have a life ahead of them. But what is worse than talking about coal power is lying to coal workers and that is what those on the other side are doing. They are lying to coalminers and saying, 'Nothing has to change. We can keep doing what we have done for the last 150 years and nothing has to change.' That is what those on the other side are doing; they are lying to workers. What is worse is those lies will lead to greater costs to households in this country and to taxpayers, greater costs than they have to be and that is the nub of this matter. The truth is the government has abandoned any claim to economic credibility. Policy is being driven by the member for Hughes and the Deputy Prime Minister. It is being driven by the remnants of the old DLP. The Liberal Party no longer believe in markets because if they believed in markets—
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
Mr CONROY: Well you are representing their policies right now, member for Hughes, because those policies are a rejection of market economics, a rejection of a free market and are instead embracing a command-and-control policy that would do BA Santamaria proud. That is what they are doing. That is what they tried to do under the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, and that is what they are doing right now.
I am prepared to debate energy policy and electricity prices uphill and down dale with these jokers on the other side any day because the facts are on my side, the economics are on my side, the industry is on my side, and—guess what—the workers on my side too.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the member for O'Connor, the members for Fairfax and Hughes are on the cusp of a warning. I want that noted.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (16:36): I rise today to second and support the member for Fairfax's motion. The member is correct. The rising cost of electricity, whether it is the price of electricity at home or the cost to businesses that will flow on and threaten jobs and business competitiveness, will affect every Australian whatever state they happen to be in. One solution to the rising cost of electricity is to focus on a technology-neutral approach to meeting our emissions target and considering the opportunity coal offers to the energy market. Coal has historically been integral to power generation in Western Australia, and the town Collie in my electorate of O'Connor is central to this.
Coal was first discovered in Collie in the 1880s and, over the past 130 years, has provided thousands of people with jobs in the south-west of WA. There are now two coalmines in Collie, the only operating coalmines in WA, producing about seven million tonnes of coal per year. The majority of this coal is used to power Collie's three power stations, which generate around 50 per cent of the state's power—at this point in time this afternoon, it is around 52 per cent—compared to wind, which was two per cent about an hour ago. It was up to about 3.3 per cent today. It was 14 per cent about a week ago. Who knows what it will be tomorrow?
Back in 2008, we bore witness to the problems of relying too heavily on gas to power the state, and gas powers around 42 to 44 per cent of the state's energy needs. We had the Varanus Island explosion, which led to the sudden loss of almost 35 per cent of the state's gas supply. This resulted in Collie's decommissioned Muja A and B coal-fired power stations being returned to service. Coal-fired power has proven to be the cheapest and most reliable form of baseload power.
At peak times, other states pay over $100 per megawatt of power. South Australia in particular has the highest power costs in the country, where the average price for power of price this year has been $108 per megawatt hour up from $61 last year and $39 in 2015. I know the member for Grey was just having a look on the AEMO website a minute ago and WA's cost of wholesale electricity at this point in time is $39 per megawatt hour, much to the envy of the member for Grey, who is looking at South Australia, which is currently at around $109. The cost of energy in South Australia has rapidly increased in correlation with the South Australia's government increased Renewable Energy Target. Around 45 to 50 per cent of South Australia's energy has come from sun and wind based resources.
Last year we saw how unreliable renewable energy sources can be, particularly when you do not have a reliable source of baseload power, as we saw in South Australia. And unlike South Australia, which is interconnected for backup power from other states, Western Australia has no interconnector. So when things go wrong, we cannot ask for help from anyone else—we will be on our own. The closure of Victoria's Hazelwood power station and coalmine resulted in the loss of 750 jobs in the Latrobe Valley. Collie relies heavily on its coalmining and power generation industry, so I do not want to see that happen there because any closures would be catastrophic and would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs which would likely end Collie as we know it.
With more than 50 years of coal available to be mined in Collie, and given its low cost of production and reliability, coal should remain at the forefront for power generation going forward, with investment into cleaner technology being a priority. WA has long propped up the finances for the other states with GST revenues from our strong resources industry. WA should not be penalised by a clean energy target that puts pressure on WA's main power source and favours renewables. If we proceed with a clean energy target we must introduce legislation to enable the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in carbon capture and storage. This will safeguard the future of the coal industry and ensure that emissions from coal fired power stations are kept out of the atmosphere.
Australia's biggest carbon-capture project is a $2.6 billion venture at the Gorgon LNG project in the north of WA, which is due to start up later this year. It will inject up to four million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the ground every year. This project is backed by $60 million of government funding and is intended to cut greenhouse emissions from the LNG venture by about 40 per cent.
A $1.8 billion coal-to-diesel venture by Collie Synfuels has emerged as the first confirmed contender for government funding for carbon capture and storage. Collie Synfuels wants to build two plants, one in Victoria and one in WA, that would initially produce clean diesel and, later, hydrogen. However, to get government funding a bill to enable the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in carbon capture and storage needs to be passed through the parliament with the support of the Senate. Up until now, the project has been hamstrung in efforts to secure funding from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, despite its low-emissions technology. This policy is about reducing emissions, and we should have a technology-neutral approach. That means considering the opportunity that coal offers when utilising both high-efficiency, low-emission coal and carbon capture and storage technology.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (16:41): I rise in this place to stand up for North Queensland and to speak out against ever-increasing electricity prices. I need to do this, because the LNP has completely failed and neglected Queensland—especially the north.
In North Queensland we are experiencing skyrocketing electricity prices, with not a sign of support from the Turnbull government to address this dire issue. The cost of electricity keeps rising, increasing pressure on families and pensioners—also including the fact that the cost of living is growing. Pensioners in my area cannot afford to turn on their air conditioner. This is simply unacceptable in such a hot climate.
In my electorate of Herbert I am constantly speaking with residents and businesses, particularly small businesses, which are struggling to make ends meet due to the high cost of electricity. Once a week I visit a locally owned and operated small business in the community. The main purpose of my visit is to promote the message of buy local and to touch base with the business owners—to listen to their successes but also to talk through their challenges. I am constantly hearing that the major concern for local small business in Herbert is the cost of electricity.
For example, Kellie Herring, the owner of Organic Pantry in Townsville recently phoned my office as she had just received an electricity bill for $8,000. That was a huge rise and one that she could not afford. Kelly employs three local staff, and a bill that high was simply unaffordable and unacceptable for her. I have spoken to a business owner who cannot afford to keep the air conditioning running throughout the day. He and his wife have developed some very creative ways to cool the warehouses and offices without using electricity. But as they both said, this is not acceptable because their business is so large that when they do turn the air conditioning on when people come in there is no time for it to cool down.
Let me say that when you live in the dry tropics of Townsville in North Queensland it is very hard to run a business without air conditioning. This situation is creating huge stress for these business owners. Sun Metals Corporation is one of Queensland's biggest electricity consumers, and a key Townsville employer. In the last two years their electricity bill has increased by over 72 per cent. Their electricity bill has increased from $50 million in 2015 to more than $70 million in 2016. And here is a challenging fact: electricity prices in Queensland have been more expensive than in South Australia in 2015-16, despite Queensland's coal fired power generation. The cost of wholesale electricity prices has doubled under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, and yet this year's Turnbull government budget delivered absolutely nothing for Townsville's water security and energy infrastructure, something that will not be forgotten by residents.
Labor leads in energy solutions, where the Turnbull government has failed Townsville and North Queensland. Bill Shorten met with local Townsville business leaders to discuss these issues and the impact that they are having on the north's economy and the negative impact on our community. Less than one month later, Townsville saw a real commitment from Labor. I was proud to stand with Bill Shorten, who committed $200 million for a hydro power station on the Burdekin Falls Dam and $100 million for water security infrastructure in a Shorten-led federal Labor government.
Townsville has sunshine on 300 days of the year, on average. We have so much sunshine in Townsville, in fact, that we are colloquially known as 'Browns-ville.' Our sunshine has the ability to create thousands of new jobs and bring investment to our region. Since January 2016 North Queensland has seen an unprecedented level of renewable energy investment activity, with over 780 megawatts of large-scale projects either commencing construction or securing financial support. The total of these projects will deliver over $1.6 billion of infrastructure spending to North Queensland and will create over 1,400 jobs during construction. These projects include one of Australia's largest solar farms built in Clare, creating over 200 jobs; the $225 million 148-megawatt Ross River Solar Farm, delivering around 200 jobs during construction; and Sun Metals' 125-megawatt solar farm, making them the largest single-site user of renewable energy, creating 210 jobs during construction. Private industry and companies are recognising and acting on the renewable energy opportunities that Townsville has to offer. If only the Turnbull government would join the party.
Addressing alternative energy sources for the north is critical, because our unemployment rate is at 11.3 per cent and our youth unemployment is 21.7 per cent. Jobs in this new sector would be great. (Time expired)
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:46): The member for Charlton talked earlier about a rational energy policy. My question to every Labor member is: do you really believe that a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030 is in any way a rational electricity policy for this nation? It is the height of irresponsibility and recklessness to promote a 50 per cent renewable energy target, to rush to renewables, without sorting out the issues of storage and inertia, yet that is exactly what Labor Party members support and that is the policy of the Queensland Labor government. They have decided that they want for that state a 50 per cent renewable energy target. Haven't they seen the absolute, unmitigated disaster that that policy has caused in South Australia? The South Australian experiment, where the South Australian Labor government has turned that state into a guinea pig, has completely and utterly failed, yet we have the state Labor Party in Queensland wanting to copy that exactly. You can only shake your head at such stupidity, such incompetence, such recklessness and such danger to the prosperity of not only all Queenslanders but all Australians.
The member for Charlton gave a great speech about how renewable energy is actually now cheaper than coal. Let us take him at his word. If he is correct, we simply do not need any renewable energy targets. If he is correct, if renewable energy is cheaper and they can do the storage cheaper, as the member for Charlton eloquently explained, we can wipe out the renewable energy target today. We can cut it today, because renewables will automatically come in because they will be cheaper. Why aren't we doing that? If that is what they really believe, let's go ahead and cut it today. Let's not extend it one further cent, and maybe some of those companies, such as AGL, that are pocketing millions and millions of dollars in subsidies from the RET scheme might want to give some of that money to charity to help some of the old-age pensioners pay for the cost of electricity that they will charge them. That is the test, if they are fair dinkum.
That is why, if we are to solve this problem, we need to provide more dispatchable power into the grid as soon as we possibly can. By 'dispatchable power', I mean that you can simply turn the power on when you need it. You cannot do that with wind and solar unless you have some type of storage capacity. If we have a reverse auction, every type of generating facility, whether it be coal, gas, hydro, solar, wind, tidal or geothermal, can put their best bids into the market. If the member for Shortland is correct, we will simply get more renewables in the market. If he is not correct, we will get more coal, gas or whatever is the cheapest. But that is what will put electricity prices down in this country, and that is what we need to do.
Also, I would again call on all members not to misrepresent the facts in this debate. The facts are that the electricity prices of this nation in the so-called glory years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments increased 118 per cent. They are the numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics: 118 per cent under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. Now Labor members come in here and say, as the member for Herbert did, how sorry they are for all the constituents in their electorates—all the pensioners that cannot turn their heating on in winter and all the small businesses that are struggling to pay their electric bills. Now they are upset about it. Where were they when, under their rule, we had an increase of 118 per cent in retail electricity prices?
It is true that wholesale electricity prices have increased under the coalition government. That is a fact, but the reason that they have is the insane policies that we have inherited from the Labor government. The policy of the Renewable Energy Target has forced our most efficient coal generators out of the market, and that is what has forced prices up. We need to get this problem fixed. The entire prosperity of our nation depends on us solving this problem without the ideology of the Labor Party and their insane 50 per cent renewable energy target. (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:52): I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Fairfax about the cost of electricity in Queensland, seconded by an MP from Western Australia. My understanding is that, unless they have snuck in an interconnector recently, Western Australia is not part of the National Electricity Market and is not providing any electricity in Queensland. Then we have just heard from an MP from New South Wales. It is a sad state of affairs when the member for Fairfax cannot find any friends among all those Queensland MPs. It is indicative of them deserting Queensland.
It is a bit rich to have the member for Fairfax criticise the Queensland government about power prices while we have seen power prices double under members in the LNP federal government. I agree with the member for Fairfax that there is a big threat to electricity prices in Australia, but it is the Turnbull government's backbench. In fact, it is sitting right next to him. In fact, he is right between them right now, packing down as hooker between two of the biggest dinosaurs in this parliament. We have had a complete lack of coherent strategy for climate and energy policy under Prime Minister Abbott and then Prime Minister Turnbull, and it will continue whenever Prime Minister Abbott comes back again. They have destroyed certainty in investment; we have seen that. We saw a collapse of over 80 per cent in private equity investment in renewable energy, all leading to a lack of supply and driving up prices under their watch, as they are about to start their fifth year in government.
While the Turnbull government fights among itself and sticks its head in the sand, let's look at what the Queensland government has done. I would point out to the member for Fairfax that we had three years of Campbell Newman and—what is that Treasurer's name?—Tim Nicholls. That is right—Tim Nicholls. We had a whole experiment there for three years. What have the Palaszczuk government done in response? They have done what they can to stimulate alternative generation to increase supply. One gigawatt of renewable projects are in the pipeline, and even more are proposed. An investment of more than $2 billion will put clear downward pressure on wholesale prices and create more than 2,000 jobs in Queensland regions, because the Labor Party still believes in the bush, unlike the Liberal National Party, which has been hijacked by the Liberals. The Nats have forgotten the bush.
When the member for Fairfax talks about electricity prices in his motion, I notice that the prices he quotes are wholesale, not retail. Volatility in wholesale prices can be seen across the NEM, as those who understand electricity know. We heard that from the member for Shortland. However, what those opposite neglect to mention is that Queensland has had the lowest average wholesale price since February. In fact, since the Queensland Labor government announced their Powering Queensland plan, wholesale prices have fallen dramatically in the futures market. I actually printed it out. Looking at the baseload future prices as at Wednesday, 21 June—it is hot off the press, Member for Fairfax—under Queensland we see that this is what people have factored into the market, and that will be 30 per cent of the average that households will actually pay. That is important. We see that for Queensland they are projecting that in 2018 it will go down by 14.2 per cent, in 2019 it will go down by 10.5 per cent and in 2020 it will go down by 8.1 per cent. This is not a Labor policy; this is actually what the financiers are locking in right now. When the member for Fairfax talks about electricity prices, he needs to not focus only on spot prices but to look at how the NEM—the National Electricity Market—is designed, to factor in a lot of things.
Spot prices have behaved similarly almost every year since its creation; I understand that. Of course, any of these peak prices are all investigated by the Australian Energy Regulator. They have looked at a report into spot market prices on 13 and 14 January, and if the member for Fairfax was in Queensland on those days then he might remember that we had the fifth and sixth days of a heatwave. Heatwaves highlight the growing bite of climate change on our atmosphere and our electricity prices. Those opposite would have you believe that renewables and real action on climate change are part of the problem, but Finkel and sensible, rational people know that we need to work on a lasting solution.
The problem with the member for Fairfax using wholesale prices, as his motion refers to, is that they only tell half of the story. In three disastrous years under the Newman-Nicholls government—those horror years—the retail electricity prices in Queensland skyrocketed by 43 per cent on the Liberal-National Party's watch. There is no mention of that in his speech. However, since the Palaszczuk government came to power, retail prices have only risen by 1.9 per cent.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:57): I do thank the member for Fairfax for moving this important motion. A survey was published in The Australian yesterday showing that 70 per cent of those who were surveyed ranked power prices and reliability as the highest priority, while only 24 per cent ranked meeting emissions targets as the priority. Many in that 24 per cent will, no doubt, be those who can afford massive power prices and those who believe the world will end by Christmas if we do not make sacrifices to the climate gods.
Yesterday in an opinion piece to my local newspaper in Mackay, the Daily Mercury, the Queensland minister for energy and gullibility, Mark Bailey, described renewables as 'the cheapest form of power'. He said that near Townsville in my electorate:
SunMetals is constructing Queensland's largest industrial solar project with 1.3 million solar panels providing the zinc refinery with a third of their baseload needs. That's right—baseload solar.
But, no, it is hardly baseload if it only generates one-third of the needs of a single business. And if it takes 1.3 million solar panels to do that, the 50 per cent renewables target is going to turn Queensland from the Sunshine State into the 'Shady State'. In criticising my commitment to affordable and reliable electricity through clean coal generation, the minister asserted:
Stagecoaches served their purpose till motor cars and Henry Ford came along.
What the minister fails to recognise is that people did not start using cars because the government taxed horses or subsidised cars or poured taxpayer money into car production or banned the construction of stagecoaches. For the past decade we have seen government interference in the energy market on a grand scale, with them trying to force renewables on people and using the people's money to do it.
Where has that got us in Queensland? According to the Queensland Productivity Commission's report on energy pricing, which was released last year, electricity prices in Brisbane increased 87 per cent in the past decade, but in the previous 26 years electricity prices had not increased at all. Why is that? In the 26 years from 1980-81 to 2006-07 the cost of electricity did not rise, but in the nine years from 2007 to 2016 the cost of electricity increased 87 per cent. If you go back over the past decade you will find that Labor governments—and, regrettably, but to a lesser extent, coalition governments—have been spruiking renewables at any cost.
And it has come at a cost: billions of dollars in costly regulations; a billion dollars of free money through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency; large-scale and small-scale renewable energy targets; solar panel rebates; $1.6 billion in the Solar Flagships program; the solar cities program; feed-in tariffs in Queensland of 44c per kilowatt hour, more than double the domestic-use tariff of 21.3c per kilowatt hour; the clean energy initiative; the Clean Energy Trade and Investment Strategy; the Solar Homes and Communities Plan; the Green Loans program; Minister Bailey, himself, spruiked this week about spending $386 million in clean energy; and of course we had Labor's carbon tax.
With all that free money, subsidies, mandated usage and the carbon tax, what actually happened? Electricity prices went up 87 per cent. Now Labor and the Greens and the climate gullibles all say that we can lower prices by spending more on renewables and shutting down more coal-fired power. I am reminded of a very popular definition of stupidity: to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.
According to the Climate Council, the biggest user of wind power is Denmark and the biggest user of solar power is Germany. Is it somewhat of a coincidence that those two countries—Denmark and Germany—have far and away the most expensive electricity in the OECD? It is double the average. If we want a different result we need a different strategy.
What Australia has not done in past decade is build high-efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power generators that can provide power for $60 to $70 per megawatt hour, including building and operating costs. That is cheaper than wind, half the cost of solar and a quarter of the cost of solar thermal with storage. Around the world there are more than a thousand of these supercritical and ultra supercritical units, with another 1,231 planned or already under construction. Over the next five years, 88 per cent of new coal-fired power will be in Asia, and it will be mostly supercritical and ultra supercritical. China has 579 of these units and is building another 575. India, another 395; Japan, 52; South Korea, 18; another 90 in Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Australia plans zero. It is time we delivered on what people want and people need: power they can afford, power they can rely on, with new clean coal generators, especially one in North Queensland.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (17:02): I thank the member for Fairfax for highlighting the really important issue of Queensland's rising electricity prices, because it really is an issue in Queensland. It is an issue because his government refuses to take meaningful action, instead of cutting federal support, that would ease the pressure that energy bills are placing on some of our society's most vulnerable people. They would not be the first LNP government to do this, either. In fact, it happened pretty recently—I am sure he will remember—at the state level in Queensland, the very region that he comes from and that he is taking issue with.
If it had been left to Campbell Newman and his rash and imprudent LNP government, the people of Queensland would no longer own their power sector companies. Despite his pre-election commitments, as Premier Mr Newman sought to sell off Queensland's assets. The public of Queensland know what happens when assets are privatised. They knew that it would jack up their energy bills and they did not want it. So guess what they did? It was up to Labor, under Annastacia Palaszczuk, to keep the assets in public hands. They succeeded, and thanks to them private companies have not been able to raise prices even further.
Queensland's state Labor government committed to delivering stable electricity prices, and they have. Prices have only increased by a minimal 1.9 per cent per year on average in this term. When you compare that to the 43 per cent increase that the Newman-Nicholls government burdened Queenslanders with, it is obvious that the downward pressure the Palaszczuk government had placed on wholesale prices is paying off for Queenslanders.
That is not all that Queensland is doing, either. Let us talk about that. On 5 June this year, they released the Powering Queensland Plan. I am sure you have heard about it, Member for Fairfax, who is walking out the door. That plan in part backs the gas generator that had been mothballed by the LNP. That will reduce the household bill increase in regional Queensland from 7.1 per cent to 3.3 per cent. So if the Queensland Labor government had such a positive effect on its state's electricity prices, why are prices skyrocketing federally?
There is the key word: federally. This federal government, the federal coalition government, has done nothing but worsen Australia's energy market. This government has caused prices to shoot upwards. It has done nothing about it, and it continues to damage our environment. If only there were some recently released report that could help prevent energy prices from continuing to rise and help our government. If only there were something—something like this! Guess what?
Something needs to be done about Australia's energy crisis. Something needs to be done that reduces damage done to our environment and stops the rises in energy prices. This report, the Finkel review, does both. Accepting the guidance of our nation's Chief Scientist would help bring Australia's energy industry into the future, yet Prime Minister Turnbull is too cowardly to stand up to his own party and just accept it. He is too cowardly to stand up to the arrogant science deniers of his party, members of the far right like the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott. Yes, despite the numerous messages from Australia's business leaders, leaders like the Business Council of Australia, who are quoted as saying that doing nothing means 'we will continue to pay higher prices and have less secure electricity supply'—that is what they said; I quoted that—the Prime Minister is still refusing to stand with Labor and do the right thing.
To the member for Fairfax—and it is a bit of a shame that he has left; he put forward this really important motion and could not be bothered to stay and listen to members of the opposition and what we have to say; it was so important—I agree. Do you know what? I agree with him. Something has to be done about Queensland's energy prices, but not by the state government, because the Queensland state government has been doing an exceptional job at keeping prices down. There is evidence of that. But what has to be done has to be done by their government, because their government—Malcolm Turnbull and the member for Fairfax's government—needs to accept the Finkel review and bring Australia back into the future.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (17:06): Might I say from the outset to the member for Longman that the member for Fairfax had a speaking engagement in the other chamber, and I think that type of aspersion on his motives is a little low. I thank the member for Fairfax for bringing this to the attention of the Chamber and giving us an opportunity to debate it. I have said on a number of occasions that unfortunately exhibit A in this debate on electricity prices is my home state of South Australia, very sadly. Last year in South Australia, 47 per cent of our electricity came from renewable sources, mainly from wind. More than 50 per cent of the wind towers, Australia's wind towers, the nation's wind towers, are in South Australia. About 60 per cent of those are in my electorate of Grey.
It is interesting that wind is supplying around 5.3 per cent of the national electricity needs, and yet in South Australia it is providing over 40 per cent. There seems to be something of a link here between the fact that we have the most expensive prices in Australia and the least reliable electricity grid. In 2012, in fact, I met with AEMO because I was alarmed that Alinta might cease operation of the Northern Power Station prematurely. I was assured by the commissioner at the time: 'Mr Ramsey, you shouldn't worry about this. We're upgrading the interconnector to Victoria, and even if Port Augusta goes off-line it'll all be fine.' Well, goodness me. What a terrible error of judgement that was, because it has not been fine.
What has happened with the proliferation of the wind towers is that, each time another wind tower block or even solar cell comes on line, it diversifies the electricity content. In an overall sense, that is a good thing. It means there are fewer times that you are deficient in electricity. The wind might not be blowing in one spot, but it is blowing in another. But unfortunately there comes a time when it does not blow anywhere. And every time there is new wind generation capacity brought on it erodes the business case of the base-load generators. So it happened with Alinta's Northern Power Station, and our gas power stations are under great pressure at the moment.
It is worth looking at a few figures. In fact, in 2016 South Australia's wholesale price of electricity was double Victoria's. For the five years to 2015, South Australia's wholesale price was 46 bucks. It went up to $61 in 2016, which was the year that, in May, the Northern Power Station came off-line, and it has gone to $108 this year. Victoria, by comparison, was $38 for the five years to 2015. It went to $46 for 2016, and in 2017 it went to $65. The effect of the closure of Hazelwood is starting to bite very deeply in the Victorian economy.
This motion is about Queensland electricity, so it is worth taking some notes there. In Queensland, for the five years to 2015, it was $47 a megawatt hour. In 2016 it went to $60, and in 2017 it went to $93 a megawatt hour. I turn to the words of the motion where it calls for:
… a full and transparent inquiry to be conducted into the cost of electricity in Queensland …
And refers to:
… the allegations of Rio Tinto that the Queensland Government is manipulating the electricity grid …
Let us go through those figures again: five years to 2015, it was $47; in 2016 it was $60 average for wholesale electricity in Queensland; and in 2017 it was $93.
In fact, in Queensland, because only four per cent of their electricity comes from renewable sources, their generation sources have not changed. The price of coal at the moment is only US$74 a tonne, and yet the price of electricity has doubled in two years. There is something funny in the walls of Denmark, or should I say in the walls of Brisbane? There is something going on here, and it looks like gaming of the system. We know who games the system: it is the people who own the power stations. I say to the people of this place and the members of this place, I say to the government of Queensland: 'Don't make the same mistake South Australia has made. You'll regret it.' I said on a number of occasions that in fact we are quite lucky. South Australia has shown the rest of Australia what not to do. If the disaster that has occurred in South Australia happened in New South Wales, it would drag the whole Australian economy under. Do not make the same mistakes.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (17:12): I concur with the member for Grey. Queensland will not make the same mistake as South Australia, because under his party and under his government they sold the assets in South Australia. They did. We will not make that mistake, and the people of Queensland have made that clear.
As the member for Grey has indicated, it is a huge, huge mistake. We know that the LNP in Queensland, if they are to return to the Treasury benches, will sell our essential assets. It is in their DNA. The member for Goldstein knows that: that the Liberal Party, as an article of faith, will actually say that they want to sell the assets that the people own. We know that. We hear it time and time again. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland last week said—wait for it—'Privatisation is dead,' just like Tony Abbott said Work Choices were 'dead, buried and cremated'. Fancy using the member for Warringah for a truth-in-government test. Hello! 'No cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC'—remember that one?
Ms Husar interjecting—
Mr DICK: Yes. We get that. That is right. On the night before the election—Member for Lindsay, I take your interjection. But we hear today the member for Fairfax moving a motion—it is truthful too—from the LNP in Queensland. We had the member for Forde moving anther Queensland government motion. Memo to those opposite: start governing and do not worry about what is happening in Queensland. I know there are a lot of distractions: party room brawls week after week and stand-up fights with everyone hooking into each other instead of governing. We know that those are so divided they are too busy fighting amongst each other.
The only party in Australia that is a shambolic mess when it comes to energy policy are those opposite. We see it leaked out through their party minutes and leaked out through the cabinet, time and time again. It is peculiar that the member for Fairfax is drinking the LNP Kool-Aid to make sure that he can run the lines to prop up a failed leader and a failed Treasurer like Tim Nicholls. But we know that, even a fortnight ago, when the member for Fairfax and his government had the opportunity to work in a bipartisan way in a collaborative fashion, when the Finkel review was handed down into the future security of the National Electricity Market, we saw a complete meltdown inside the LNP. We know that under the LNP government, led by the Prime Minister, power prices have doubled. Their heads are down and they are silent now. That is a statement of fact. They know that. They cannot deny that. Under this government, power prices are up, pollution is up and jobs are down. We know this because that is what we are hearing time and time again.
Let's have a look at some of the facts about the motion that we are dealing with today, dished up by the member for Fairfax. The truth is that electricity prices in Queensland have been historically low since the Palaszczuk government came to power in 2015. In the year to March 2016, electricity prices rose by a meagre 1.43 per cent. In the past year they have grown by 3.18 per cent. Let's just go back to over two years ago, when the LNP were in power for that toxic experiment that was the Newman government, led by Campbell Newman and the then Treasurer, Tim Nicholls. It is a stark contrast. Power prices increased by 43 per cent over their term in office.
Just two weeks ago we saw the Premier announce a new Powering Queensland Plan, which will invest $1.16 billion to ensure Queenslanders continue to enjoy an affordable, secure and sustainable supply of electricity. The member for Fairfax mentioned the issue of state-owned power generators, and I am pleased to inform the House that the state government is leveraging its ownership of these businesses to intervene to reduce wholesale price impacts from the National Electricity Market and to protect jobs in energy-intensive industries. But, of course, that would not be happening if the LNP had been successful at that election and if the member for Fairfax and his supporters had had their way, because these assets would have been sold off, meaning the returns would have gone to interstate and overseas investors instead of being reinvested in the Queensland economy.
It is absolutely clear that all the member for Fairfax and the government need to do is to get on with the job of working in a bipartisan way on a national energy policy. Stop the infighting, stop blaming each other and start delivering for Australia. (Time expired)
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:17): I have never entered a debate where there has been more prevalent towering ignorance of what is actually going on. It is really very simple. In 1993, householders paid $642.87. In the year 2000, they were paying $642.87. When I was minister, we had the cheapest electricity in the world, and I can prove that, because we got the aluminium industry. There were two huge smelters that were going to Canada, which has very cheap power from hydroelectricity, and they found out we had cheaper power. This is a radical idea these days, but we had a thing called a reserved resource policy: we took one per cent of the coal for free—'Too bad, so sad, Mr Utah and Mr Mitsui; we're taking one per cent of the power, and we're putting it into the biggest power station in the world, Gladstone, owned by the people of Queensland.' There was no privatisation in the Bjelke-Petersen years, I can assure you—just the opposite. There is the proof. I do not deserve any credit; in fact, I came in afterwards. But I was right-hand man to Ron Camm under Bjelke-Petersen in the end.
This is interesting: why does it then leap from $642 in 2001 to $2,010 by 2013? We do not have the figures for 2014 and 2015, unfortunately. Why does it take a 250 per cent leap through the sky in Queensland? These are the graphs for South Australia and for Victoria, and again you can see there is a flat line until we get to the year 2000, and then there is no longer a flat line; it is almost a vertical line.
So what happened? If there is someone in this parliament who is not a free marketeer—outside of me, the Xenophon party, my colleague from Hobart and, I am ashamed to admit, the Greens—I have not run into them. I have never heard a single person get up in this place and say, 'We're going to build a railway line into the Galilee.' They all talk about Adani as if somehow the Galilee Basin is Adani. It is not; it is just one of 20 businesses on the Galilee. You see that all of it is flat line until the year 2000, and then suddenly it is vertical—so what happened in 2001? It was not the greenies because they came in little increments, here, there and everywhere. What happened? It was the year of the introduction of National Competition Policy and the year we abolished a government system, owned by the people and delivering at operating costs. It is no use the ALP saying differently. I have great personal respect for the Labor member of parliament, but he talks like it was the fault of the Liberals. Listen, mate, you were the one who corporatised the electricity system and watched 2,000 ETU members lose their jobs. You are the one who did that—not the LNP. The ALP did that. On the railways, I could not believe Pat Dunne when he said, 'The ALP government will annihilate us.' There were 22,000 members in the railways in 1979 and 22,000 members in the railways in 1989. It was the time of Bjelke-Petersen. Not one single railway job was removed in 10 years. Under the socialists, within 16 years there were only 7,000 railway employees in Queensland. All of the freight went off the railways. All that the railways carry in Queensland now is minerals. They do it very efficiently and make a lot of money, but all of the rest of it was given over to road transport. So the taxpayers picked up the bill. As for us poor people at the end of the line, we paid nearly 700 per cent more for our rail freight. But here it is. It is free marketeering that has put up the electricity prices and there is no way to overcome it except to go back to regulation. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Workplace Relations
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (17:22): Might I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is lovely to come in here and see a woman in the chair. I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) reducing penalty rates will have a disproportionate effect on women;
(b) women make up 54 per cent of workers on the Fast Food Industry Award, 55 per cent on the General Retail Industry Award and 77 per cent on the Pharmacy Industry Award;
(c) in hospitality women are disproportionately part time and award reliant;
(d) the Government has refused to rule out cuts to the Hair and Beauty Industry Award, an award for an industry comprised of 87 per cent women; and
(e) thousands more women will be affected by these penalty rates cuts than men;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) women are more likely to rely on penalty rates to meet household expenses;
(b) the cuts in take home pay of up to $77 a week will make it harder for women to pay rent and feed their families; and
(c) the cuts to penalty rates in these industries will widen the gender pay gap;
(3) condemns the Government's:
(a) failure to protect the take home pay of low paid women workers; and
(b) support for further cuts to the Hair and Beauty Industry Award; and
(4) calls on the Government to:
(a) support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 to protect the take home pay of low paid workers;
(b) exercise some leadership and stand up for low paid workers; and
(c) start working to close the gender pay gap.
In February, the Fair Work Commission decided to cut Sunday penalty rates by 25 to 50 per cent for full-time and part-time employees in hospitality, fast food, retail and pharmacy. The insulting and offensive pay cut will kick in in less than two weeks, on 2 July. It will be a big, big blow to the modest pay packets of over 12,000 people in my electorate. According to the 2011 census—and, sadly, I do not have up-to-date figures—retail is the second largest industry in Lindsay, employing 8,093 workers. Food and hospitality is the eighth biggest, employing 3,987 workers. Cuts to penalty rates are also bad news for our local economy, as these workers will now have less money to spend in local shops, restaurants and businesses. Our local economy could have up to $930,160 ripped out each week, which is more than $48 million less in spending each year. According to the ACTU, half a million workers in retail, hospitality and fast food will lose up to $6,000 a year. It is a pay cut that will be borne almost entirely by the people in our country who can least afford it: the low-paid casual and part-time workforce.
Women make up roughly 46 per cent of the total Australian workforce, which means in most professions women are in the minority. However, in both retail and food services, the industries that are affected by this decision, women dominate. About 16 per cent of the retail workforce is made up of single parents, and you can bet they are mostly mums trying their utmost to make ends meet. These are the people who will be losing out as a result of this decision. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out today during the matter of public importance discussion, the decision will further increase the gender pay gap—the gender pay gap that the federal government and those opposite claim they are in favour of closing. Women's time, effort, abilities and the kind of work we do are already considered inherently less valuable. On 2 July the gender pay gap is going to get a whole lot worse.
Here is why women will be some of the hardest hit by Fair Work's decision. Women are substantially more likely to be employed on a part-time or casual basis, and more than 70 per cent of part-time workers are women. Women are most likely to be working on weekends and covering public holiday shifts. For a lot of mums, giving up their weekends to go to work at a time when Dad is available to look after the kids is not a choice, especially for single parents. It is a necessity caused in part by the high cost and inadequate provision of child care.
On 2 July that precious weekend time spent away from the family will instantly become less valuable for a whole lot of working mums. University of Sydney Business School professor, Marian Baird, said that the Fair Work Commission's decision will have a 'disproportionate and negative impact on women'. She said:
For many women, working on weekends is their only option because conventional career work on weekdays is too inflexible for them and there is no childcare.
Dr Baird said women represent more than 54 per cent of employees in retail and hospitality, the sectors which will be most affected by the reductions in Sunday penalty rates. Dr Baird said while the Fair Work Commission's decision looks at the composition of part-time workers it does not properly acknowledge the representation of males and females. Surprise, surprise! It also describes a category of jobs as 'non-career'. Dr Baird goes on:
This misses the point that for many women there is no other option as their so-called career jobs are impossible to manage if they have children, elder care or other family responsibilities. So they have been forced to take other work that is more flexible, but lower skilled and paid.
Women sacrifice family time and social activities by working on Sundays. Dr Lyn Craig, director of the University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre, has conducted research that suggests employees who work weekends, especially Sundays, never get to make up for the social time they lose. Dr Craig said penalty rates are being reduced at the same time welfare and family payments are also being cut. She said:
This will impact on single parents and young people who depend on those things at a time of the lowest wages growth we've had for a long time.
Marie Coleman, chair of the social policy committee of the women's lobby group, the National Foundation for Australian Women, said the Fair Work Commission's decision was a 'fair smash at younger women and female-headed families … It is a very rough deal.' It means a retail worker on $600 per week could expect to lose $80 per week, or $4160 a year. Marie Colman said, 'If the government's proposed cuts to income support are taken into account, she could lose up to $6000 a year.'
Women in my electorate and across the country are more likely to receive minimum award wages and more likely to rely on penalty rates to meet household expenses.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms LAMB (Longman) (17:27): I second the motion. I am very pleased to follow the member for Lindsay, a wonderful representative for her electorate and an advocate for families and working women. I am very pleased to follow the member for Lindsay. I am pleased to join her in opposing this government's cruel and vicious cuts to the penalty rates of workers in Australia that they seek to implement on 1 July. It means that in less than two weeks this government will be cutting the take-home pay of up to 700,000 hardworking Australians.
Today I stand in solidarity with those workers to oppose this government's changes to the Fair Work Act because these changes are anything but fair. How could it be fair that the government looks to cut the take-home pay of ordinary Australian workers while at the same time giving a huge tax cut to big business? How could it be fair that workers have to miss out on countless weekends with their families—barbecues, birthdays, going to sporting matches or spending time with friends? How is it fair that they will lose a little bit of the compensation they receive for working on those Sundays? How could it be fair that the government's cuts to penalty rates will further widen the gender pay gap which really should have been left behind in the ancient past?
This decision will have a disproportionate effect on women. Women make up 54 per cent of the workforce in the fast-food industry, 55 per cent of workers in the general retail industry and 77 per cent of workers in the pharmacy industry, and in the hair and beauty industry—for which this government refuses to rule out these same cuts—women account for 87 per cent of the workforce. It is obvious that thousands more women will be affected by this penalty rates cut, and they will be affected more than men will be. Thousands of women rely on their penalty rates, not just to meet household expenses. They use that extra income to pay the rent. They feed their families. The question is: will they have their take-home pay cut by this government? There are two weeks to go, two weeks for the government to make this change and save this.
I am just astonished by this decision. I really am. On 2 July, the very first Sunday that these workers will see the penalty rates cut, it will be exactly one year since Prime Minister Turnbull and his government won the 2016 election. Since then, they really have done nothing. They have done nothing to support our families, nothing at all, and nothing to support workers. They have done nothing to create jobs, and they have done nothing to protect Medicare.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:31 to 17:44
Ms LAMB: We are here today to speak about penalty rates, and women in particular. We know that they disproportionately affect women. Around 77 per cent of our pharmacy workers are women, and on 2 July they are going to be faced with a cut to their take-home pay. As I said earlier, these are women who are paying the rent and they are feeding and raising their families. They need this money and they deserve this money. They are giving up their weekends, they are giving up family time. Paying them penalty rates is not just the right thing to do, it is also what they deserve.
We have got to look at who is making this decision to cut penalty rates. It is the Turnbull government. On 2 July, they will celebrate 12 months since the 2016 election. What else have we seen? We have seen nothing, basically. They have done nothing to create jobs and nothing to protect Medicare. Let us look at Medicare. The first thing they did was actually a really cheap and cowardly attack on Australian workers. This is a government that really does stand for the rich and for big business; it turns its back on ordinary workers and ordinary Australians. What sort of government gives big business a huge tax cut that will leave millionaires $16,400 better off while, at the same time, cuts the take-home pay of workers? They know it is wrong.
There are two speaking spots left on this motion and there are two government members over there. I wonder if they are going to take the opportunity to hop up and speak about penalty rates and speak in support of the member for Lindsay's motion, speak in support of penalty rates and the women in their electorates. I wonder if they are going to get up and do that. I doubt it very much. It is time to stop these cruel cuts. They have got two weeks to do it and I hope by the time we rise on Thursday night that is what they do. (Time expired).
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): 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.
Papua New Guinea-Australia Policing Partnership
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (17:46): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the ongoing work of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in the Pacific to keep our region safe and support our neighbours;
(2) recognises the Australian Government and the AFP's commitment to supporting our neighbour, Papua New Guinea (PNG), and the capacity building of the Royal PNG Constabulary;
(3) congratulates the Australian Government for announcing in January 2017 the extension of the PNG Australia Policing Partnership with 73 AFP personnel assisting PNG in planning for the 2018 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum; and
(4) recognises that the:
(a) increasingly transnational nature of crime, including illegal movement of drugs, weapons and people, highlights the importance of cooperation between Australia and PNG; and
(b) Australian and PNG governments share an important and enduring relationship, which will be further strengthened through this investment in law enforcement.
I move this motion in strong support of the men and women of the Australian Federal Police who have for many years worked alongside, and who are still working alongside, some of our closest Pacific neighbours, such as Papua New Guinea. Today in question time I asked the foreign minister about our government's role when it comes to safety and security both here and abroad. It is absolutely vital that Australia continues to play a strong role in supporting our nearest neighbours like PNG as close friends, as trading partners, as developing economies and as democracies that, we acknowledge, have seen their fair share of challenges, including recent natural disasters.
I think it is right and I think it is fair that we work together to deal with the increasing threat of crime that now exists both across borders and throughout our region. Earlier this year the Australian government announced a $48 million extension of our longstanding policing partnership with our close and dear friend and Pacific neighbour Papua New Guinea. The 18-month extension to the Papua New Guinea-Australia policing partnership will extend the agreement through to the end of 2018, which will then mark 10 years since the partnership commenced. Over this period of time both of our police forces have worked very closely together in making both of our nations safer, more stable and more secure. This additional funding will ensure the continued presence of 73 Australian Federal Police personnel in Papua New Guinea and assist them in planning for the 2018 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
This is the first time that PNG will host APEC. The forum is a big opportunity for them and it will provide a significant prospect for their nation, with around 10,000 delegates attending from around the world; world leaders, dignitaries and media will be in attendance. This is an opportunity for our close friend and neighbour PNG to showcase its country, its friendly people, its tourist attractions and its industry right around the world. In the lead-up to APEC 2018 about 56 personnel from the Australian Federal Police will have a dedicated advisory role specifically related to the planning of that forum. Through the PNG-Australia policing partnership, AFP personnel will be providing best practice advice on law enforcement to the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary. The personnel will be providing specialist advice, training and rehearsing the RPNGC capabilities in major event planning, close personal protection, maritime, canine work, bomb searches, traffic, airports, intelligence and investigations. The remaining 17 AFP personnel will continue to work to strengthen custody management practices, juvenile justice matters and some very specific crime prevention and response priorities, and to work generally to continue to improve the capability and the professionalism of the RPNGC.
The increasingly transnational nature of crime—including the illegal movement of drugs, for instance, and weapons and people—highlights the very important nature of cooperation between Australia and our close Pacific neighbours. We all share an important and enduring relationship. We share custodianship of the South Pacific, and this will be further strengthened through this investment in law enforcement capacities in our region.
I have previously spoken in this chamber about my deep affinity with the people in the Asia-Pacific region. I am someone who has been fortunate enough to visit most of these countries and most of our nearest neighbours, and all around the region I have seen the smiling faces, the infrastructure, the trade and the other clear evidence there is that Australia's cooperation, collaboration and help with our nearest neighbours is making a huge difference for the benefit of humanity in our region. On Friday last week I was at an Australian aid event in Brisbane, where I managed to speak very briefly with PNG's acting consul in Brisbane, Jimmy U Ovia, and with the High Commissioner of the Solomon Islands, His Excellency Mr Collin Beck. I understand that the very successful RAMSI, Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, will be winding up soon, after the great cooperation shown over very many years between our AFP officers and 14 other nations who are contributing in the Solomon Islands.
I asked both of these representatives from our Pacific neighbours about this motion, and they wanted me to pass on to this House the very strong thanks of their countries. Congratulations to our AFP officers on all of their great work.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Drum: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (17:52): Unquestionably, the work that has, and continues to be, undertaken by the Australian Federal Police in the Pacific is first class, and is a credit to the many fine men and women who dedicate themselves to protecting our community and that of others. Currently there are approximately 70 police officers deployed in PNG as unarmed advisers to the Royal PNG Constabulary, who are working very closely with them in the lead-up to next year's APEC conference.
The AFP officers are playing a very significant role in raising a police profile in the community so that the people of PNG can feel a real connection with the police. They are building a more professional policing identity. The AFP officers are making a real difference, and this can be evidenced by just two incidents, which I will cite. The first is a motorcycle course that has been led by AFP Inspector Mike Smith, which has seen members of the PNG Constabulary go from just being able to ride pushbikes to now taking part in a motorcade. Another example is the work being led by Commander Scott Lee, who has overseen a condemned watch house being upgraded to a fully functional modern watch house and holding cells. These are only two examples of the many ways the AFP is making a difference in the Pacific.
However, all this hard work does not seem to be appreciated by this government, who are currently expecting members of the AFP to accept an enterprise agreement that will leave them worse off. Despite the nature of their work, the AFP is being treated as just another Public Service department when it comes to their enterprise agreement. The Australian Federal Police Association president, Angela Smith, and vice-president, Graeme Cooper, have been pressing Minister Keenan for some time now about the deficiencies of the government's bargaining policy when it comes to operational policing. The minister does not miss a photo opportunity with police and certainly boasts that we have the best-trained officers in the world, but clearly he is not prepared to back his officers when it comes to their current enterprise agreement.
We know that policing comes with a high degree of risk and dangers that, thankfully, most of us will never have to face. We are indebted to those men and women who are brave enough to wear the police uniform and to put their lives at risk to defend our safety and our way of life. Yet in return for an unsatisfactory pay offer, the AFP members are being expected to work an additional week each year, have less rest time between shifts, work excessive hours with fewer people, have inadequate protection and compensation, all the while being expected to give away a percentage of their salary. Understandably, the Australian Federal Police Association cannot support an agreement which will set a new low for attacks on police officers' wages and conditions.
I am advised from the feedback of members of the Australian Federal Police that they are insulted by the way they are being treated by this government and by being expected to support the government's predetermined Public Service outcome. To be clear, our Federal Police officers are being asked to accept a wage deal that will see them lose pay and conditions, at a time when last week the Australian Defence Force hierarchy concluded an agreement with the government on a new three-year deal that carries a pay increase of two per cent per year with no loss of conditions. How is the way the Australian Federal Police are being treated fair? I support our police and I challenge those opposite to not just give us mealy-mouthed words but to also do the same.
It is all very well to come in here and make speeches about how good and how brave our police are in protecting and servicing our community but, when it comes to payday, we will treat them like any other public servant. We are talking about people who do put the uniform on, who do take the risks that thankfully the rest of us will never have to face, who do take their job so seriously that, regrettably, some have lost their lives in their deployments yet when it comes to payday, they are being confronted by a Public Service agreement which fails to recognise the significance of the work they undertake.
This is a government that, as I say, wants to come to most question times and boast about the funding that they are giving to the Australian Federal Police to accommodate operational requirements. Yet when it comes to their pay and conditions, the government are doing the exact opposite. It should serve people to be a little bit more honest when they come into this place. Do not just treat these people as just another group of workers; treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve.
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (17:57): I rise to commend Mr Evans on the motion he has moved before the House this evening, which acknowledges the work the Australian Federal Police are doing in the Pacific to keep our neighbours as safe as possible. I heard what the previous speaker from the opposition said but this is about an investment of an additional $48 million to extend the long-term partnership we have with our Pacific neighbours and with Papua New Guinea. This extension is going to lead into the Asia-Pacific economic forum. There is a whole range of developments going on in Port Moresby to host this forum. I had the opportunity to go there late last year on a Save the Children trip. It was certainly a real eye-opener for someone who was not aware of some of the social climes that are a dynamic of the Papua New Guinean society.
One of the real issues with PNG at the minute is that its revenue is so heavily linked to the oil price. With the oil price spiralling downwards over the last few years, PNG has had its revenue practically halved within 12 to 18 months, down from around $40 billion in the previous financial year to around $8 billion. Therefore, PNG relies on overseas countries like Australia to continue to help support and make PNG safe in a whole range of different areas and this support is absolutely critical.
PNG is an absolute paradise when you go to experience it; however, it is an absolute victim of its own violence. It is devoid of tourism because it is simply too violent to attract tourists from around the world. It is violent for women, with over 90 per cent of the female population of New Guinea reporting serious domestic violence. It is violent for children—children are unable to walk to school until they can outrun an adult—and it is violent for its citizens.
This violence seems to be absolutely crippling the country from progressing into the modern era. There seems to be a total lack of acceptance and the political will do anything about this violence. It puts even more pressure on people such as the AFP as they set about putting in place a structure that is going to be able to make the streets of Port Moresby safe for the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Again, what happens to a country that has no money? The first thing that you notice is that you go to hospitals that do not have any drugs and do not have any medicines. You go to hospitals where the staff have not been paid for months. You can go to libraries in schools where there are no books, and if it were not for the philanthropic nature of some of the big industries around PNG—namely, Oil Search—a whole range of these social norms that we expect here in Australia are simply gone without.
There is very heavy reliance on Oil Search to build sporting infrastructure, to build and run hospitals and to fund schools. It partners with Save the Children to assist with the PNG government in the APEC forum. Certainly, what we have to understand is that the population of PNG is absolutely burgeoning. Horrible infant mortality rates have been the norm for the previous 30 or 40 years, and now this country is coming out of that. They are having incredible, greater success in relation to having their infants continue into adult lives. This is going to see the population jump, effectively, towards 30 million people within 10 to 15 years.
We need to make sure that when we have 30 million people sitting just off our Queensland coast that they are lawful and understand the damage of mistreating women and children. We need our neighbours to have a lawful existence, which is not the case at the moment. So a huge priority has been placed on the work that the AFP are doing. They are building the capacity of the local forces as well and certainly making sure that this work gets done in the best way that it possibly can.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:02): The Pacific region, of which Papua New Guinea is such a dynamic and vital part, is of great significance to Australia. As the Parliamentary Secretary for the Pacific Islands in the previous Labor government, I was fortunate to visit a number of Pacific Island nations and to work with those governments—in particular, Papua New Guinea. In 2013 I was pleased to open the 22-bed tuberculosis and isolation ward of the Daru General Hospital in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea. That was part of Australia's $33 million commitment to support PNG's approach to the detection and treatment of TB in the Western Province. In government, Labor was keenly engaged in strengthening ties with our neighbours through such initiatives and also in the provision of aid, including in times of natural disaster.
As countries have recognised common interests in protecting the Pacific region's resources and responding to the challenges of climate change, political and security links across the region have grown. Economic ties have expanded as well, as the countries of the region, foremost amongst them Papua New Guinea, have become fully integrated into the global economy. Papua New Guinea has dynamic gas resources that are currently being exploited and which provide big opportunities for the nation—not only to increase their living standards but also to increase the national income of the country.
Australia and PNG also share many ties—business, personal, family and, of course, sporting. Many Australians and Papua New Guineans now live in each other's countries. There is a long tradition of Papua New Guinean students choosing to study in Australia. Tourism and cultural exchanges between the two countries are also on the rise. These links help to deepen our already close relationships.
For many years, defence policies have identified the need for Australia to play a role in the Pacific. Australia has supplied patrol boats throughout the Pacific, playing vital roles in such initiatives as the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands.
Our aid footprint is also the largest in the Pacific, as is our diplomatic footprint. An important part of the partnership that Australia shares with Pacific island nations in work with those governments is through the Australian Federal Police. The Australian Federal Police have a great tradition of training and providing security deployments for Pacific island nations.
When I was in Papua New Guinea on my most recent trip, a few years ago, I was fortunate to visit the Department of Justice and Attorney General and to see firsthand the training that the AFP had been providing to police officers and to police prosecutors in prosecuting perpetrators of domestic violence. We all know that domestic violence is a massive issue in the Pacific, in particular in Papua New Guinea. The training that the AFP were providing for these prosecutors and police officers working to combat domestic violence was first class.
The Gillard government also initiated the Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development program, which was a great success in improving the living standards of women, access to education and access to healthcare services and, importantly, combating domestic violence. It is a program that I am deeply proud of as a member of the Labor Party.
As this motion points out, Papua New Guinea will be hosting APEC in 2018. It will be a massive challenge for this nation and without a doubt the biggest international focus on Papua New Guinea in its modern history. Papua New Guinea and Australia undertake through the Australian Federal Police a policing partnership, with 73 AFP personnel working in that nation, working with the Papua New Guinean government, in preparation for APEC, ensuring that security is refined, ensuring that people who participate in this conference will be safe. That is something that the Australian people should be very, very proud of.
With such growth in the Papua New Guinean economy comes the potential magnification of issues that plague PNG now. With so much change and opportunity, Australia should seek to build our lasting ties and commonalities to work with our neighbours to the north and ensure a prosperous, secure future for a shared region. I congratulate the AFP for the work that they are doing in working with Papua New Guineans to improve security and to keep the Papua New Guinean public safe. We should all be very, very proud of the work of the Australian Federal Police.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (18:07): I commend this proposed resolution. It affords an opportunity too rare, I think, to speak about both Papua New Guinea and our relationship with PNG and indeed the Pacific. The proposed resolution speaks of congratulating the role of the Federal Police in PNG, and I would certainly add my congratulations to that. It speaks about an increase in numbers of the Federal Police being provided to PNG in the lead-up to APEC, which will be a huge moment in the history of PNG next year. Indeed, as I understand it—and I hope to go to PNG in a couple of months time—the holding of APEC next year is transforming Port Moresby and is really a huge development moment for PNG.
It is right to say that Australia's actions in the Pacific over a long period of time and in PNG have been very significant. It is, for example, the largest Defence Cooperation Program that we have. Our development assistance relationship with PNG has at times been the largest that we have had. It has always been consistently in the top two or three. One of our largest missions in the world is our diplomatic mission that is in PNG. We have a significant presence in Papua New Guinea. It reflects a history that we have with PNG, and it also reflects the fact that PNG matters. PNG deeply matters. It is a country which is 50 per cent bigger than New Zealand. It is right there, in the sense that there are people, each and every day, who commute from PNG across the Torres Strait to work in Australia under a unique treaty which exists between the two countries and which allows that movement of people to go to work each and every day.
There are a whole lot of issues that face PNG that are relevant to us. There are law and order issues in PNG, which the motion alludes to, but there are also issues in relation to health. Making sure that we are being the best friend that we can be in providing assistance to PNG is critically important for Australia. It is also important to understand that PNG has choices. PNG has relationships with other countries in the world, which it is perfectly entitled to have. There is no inevitability or exclusivity about the relationship that Australia has with PNG. We cannot take it for granted. We need to be working at it. PNG has choices, and it is a remarkable country. It is quite simply the most exotic place I have ever been. It is a country where the multitude of languages and cultures mean that life in PNG is lived in a way that it is not live anywhere else in the world. It is colourful, it is stunning, it is beautiful, and more Australians should understand it.
You can extrapolate those comments in terms of the work Australia does within PNG and the remarkable nature of PNG and the Pacific more generally. It is an incredible part of the world, where Australia looms large. And from the perspective of those in those regions, we dominate their sense of how the world is seen. We have a huge role to play, and a huge leadership role to play, within that part of the world. But it does not have, in my view, the place in our discourse in this country that it should. This is why I think this motion is quite refreshing, because it is an exception to the kinds of discussions we tend to have when we talk about foreign policy and we talk about Australia's place in the world. That is something we need to change. We deeply need to change it.
It is not that we should have a view of the Pacific where we get to impose our ideas on that part of the world. That is not it at all. We need to have a respect for the people of the Pacific, which we do, and a respect for their sovereignty. But we must have ideas about the future of the Pacific and we must be in the business of articulating them. There is an absolute expectation from those living in the Pacific that we lead, and this is a critical point that we need to understand. And it is not just those who live in the Pacific—and this is where I want to finish; the rest of the world sees our role in the Pacific as our global calling card. For good or ill, how we engage with the Pacific is how we are judged and, actually, that is fair enough. So the way in which we operate in the Pacific and in PNG is not just a matter of how we deal there; it is about our standing globally. It is really important that it has the emphasis it deserves.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That grievances be noted.
Citizenship
Mr HILL (Bruce) (18:13): God help Australia if what we saw over the last few weeks from this desperate, hopeless Liberal government is now what passes for public policy in migration and citizenship. I am proud that Labor will ignore the dog whistling and wedge tactics by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and will vote against the government's changes to citizenship laws. I stand with my very diverse community in opposing these divisive, politically driven changes.
Was there a more pathetic sight than the Prime Minister desperately trying to sell these changes that he does not even believe in? Actually, yes, there was. There was the same Prime Minister pushing changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to let people say more racist things. It is clear they have got form on this stuff. We had spurious claims of free speech back then; now we have got silly beat-ups about national security. It only applies these changes to permanent residents of the country and no advice from national security agencies has been produced.
The terrible irony, of course, is that the Liberal Party's changes will hurt, not help, our social cohesion and community security. We do not want hundreds of thousands of permanent residents living in our country for years and years as an underclass blocked from becoming citizens. How on earth would that make us a better society or a better nation? We should expect people who settle here and live as Australians to take the pledge of allegiance to Australia sooner, rather than later. The government's plan to require university standard English is ridiculous snobbery. The citizenship test is already in English—the government can change it whenever they like—and conversational English has served us well for decades.
Over 50 per cent of people in my electorate were born in another country, including thousands of European migrants—Greeks, Italians, Serbians and so on—most of whom would never have passed this test and still would not pass the government's university English test today. They are people who have made wonderful contributions to Australia. They have raised their kids, built businesses, saved, given back to the community and enriched our culture. The minister says, 'The world is different now'. Really? Try telling that to thousands of Chinese skilled and business migrants who are absolutely furious about these changes. They have come here on a promise and often paid for their education or invested millions in growing businesses. They speak English fine, but they do not have time to learn to write an English essay. They feel lied to and cheated and feel that the Liberal government's policies are anti-Chinese.
Many Australians, including those born here—and a number of MPs, I would bet—would not pass the English test. It is profoundly unfair. And a word of advice: I am worried that it will cause another party room brawl on the other side. Why pick on Barnaby? The government's message to all Australians who do not have university-level qualifications is that, if the Liberals had their choice, they would rather you were not here.
With regard to values, of course all Australians should sign up to our laws and values. But the government have the power right now to change the citizenship test and the questions whenever they like. This damaging legislation is nothing but a stunt to advance Peter Dutton's leadership ambitions within the Liberal Party. Shamefully, the government is even refusing to release the public submissions it has received, so Labor will move for a Senate inquiry so that everyone's voices can be heard. I encourage everyone affected or concerned to speak up.
I want to make a few broader comments and reflections on the impact on Australia's society and economy from ill-thought-out migration policy. This is an incredibly complex policy area, and we are not well served by Dutton's piecemeal, politically driven changes. Over many years, we have seen the sometimes unintended consequences of ad hoc decisions which may seem fine in isolation but are quite worrying when you step back and put them together.
We now have over 1.3 million people in Australia on temporary visas with some kind of work rights attached, including international students, New Zealanders, refugees on temporary visas and working holiday travellers—a much longer list than 457 visas. The hundreds of thousands of people on temporary visas are a growing underclass in our society and vulnerable to the most appalling exploitation by employers. We are saying Australia is a nation of migrants, but it was never meant to be a two-tiered economy where temporary workers were vulnerable to exploitation, underpay and unsafe conditions.
This issue goes to the very heart of the kind of society that we want to be and will be. When employers can threaten to withhold sponsorship with no effective sanctions or refuse to certify a backpacker's 88 days of specified work without kickbacks, a worker's rights under our laws are not really there. Temporary workers face real barriers to changing jobs, and the requirement for employer sponsorship can leave them vulnerable to underpayment, poor conditions or even abuse—a form of modern slavery. We have heard about the 7-Eleven scandal and international students. We have heard of the same rorts applying in delivery services, cleaning, hospitality, agriculture and so on. There are numerous examples of people on 457 visas who are forced to pay kickbacks and terrified to speak up in case they are deported.
It is difficult at times for those of us born in Australia to truly comprehend the terror this causes someone with migration uncertainty hanging over their head. This is ripe ground for kickbacks, deductions and sexual exploitation, as has been observed by the commissioner. It does not impact migrants over there or someone else. It impacts all of us because, when employers can pick and choose between a cheap guest worker and a citizen with rights for fair pay and decent conditions, wage growth for everyone else in the country is held down by an underclass of desperate or vulnerable people who have no choice but to cop illegally low wages and dangerous, awful conditions. Scandal after scandal shows that the Fair Work Ombudsman is failing to protect people.
Australia used to pride itself on being a permanent settler migrant society where people could come, build a life and obtain citizenship. Yet now we are at risk of entrenching a guest worker or serf class, which creates this two-tiered economy—Australian citizens with rights and temporary workers without. Yet, instead of methodical policy development—facts, evidence, consultation and deliberation—the government keeps making kneejerk, populist announcements. The rebranding of the 457 visas is typical of Minister Dutton and designed for a headline. Meanwhile, the government has not even provided a response to the Senate committee's very detailed report which was entitled A national disgrace: the exploitation of temporary work visa holders, which came out more than a year ago—not a response. The Prime Minister's merchant banker mates might consider themselves global citizens who jet off to work in New York and then trip over to London, but that is not the reality for most of us. Minister Dutton's con job on 457 makes this problem worse, because whatever you rename it, however you cut the list and the conditions, if there is no proper labour market testing, it will be rorted. As the new two-year 457 visa has no pathway to permanent residency, it entrenches an even larger guest worker program in Australia.
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection talks about the importance of integration in the community, but insecurity, exploitation and permanent exclusion are profound barriers to integration and real threats to community harmony. How on earth can you build a life in this country if you do not know where you will be living in a few years time? There are over one million people in Australia who live with insecurity. None of this will be solved by fiddling with the citizenship test. To my mind, the real threat to Australian values is the creation of this permanent underclass of workers. For a country that prides itself on its egalitarian nature, on giving everyone a fair go and having the same rights under the law, it is not working. This, of course, is set to be made worse now with the creation of a permanent underclass of permanent residents excluded from full membership of the Australian community.
Of course, this will also pervert our democracy over time. Someone who spent their adult life here, who pays taxes, who may have no pathway to citizenship and speaks English but cannot write an essay will have no chance even after decades of attaining political rights—until, of course, they turn 60. Then, magically, the English test does not count anymore. How on earth does this make us a better society if we force highly skilled, law-abiding people to wait for over a decade to formalise their commitment to Australia? These are people who may have lived here all their adult life. They pay full fees as international students for high school, they pay full fees for an undergraduate degree, and they pay full fees or do a PhD for postgraduate study. They can secure a 485 visa to stay for an extra two or three years and work in a highly skilled field. They might then get one of these new 457s—we do not know the number yet—and after three years they might become a permanent resident—12 to 14 years, all their adult life, in this country. Australia is their home. They have lived here; they have paid tax here and they have contributed to the society, made friends and maybe fallen in love and had some kids—perhaps out of love. These are all the experiences that shape our adult lives. They have been, for them, Australian experiences. For these people, we should be examining more secure, quicker pathways to citizenship and not treating these sorts of people as an underclass.
In conclusion, the government's proposals as a package would accelerate and entrench radical changes to Australian society, and the government has not been honest with people about what they mean. I call on the communities to submit to the Senate inquiry and to speak up about and against these changes.
Wide Bay Electorate: Roads
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (18:23): Earlier today, I led a delegation of Wide Bay-Burnett mayors—Mick Curran from Gympie, Chris Loft from Fraser Coast, Jack Dempsey from Bundaberg, Rachel Chambers from North Burnett, and Keith Campbell from South Burnett, as well as Bill Trevor and Scott Rowe from Regional Development Australia Wide Bay Burnett—to meet with Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester. Together we impressed upon him how important the section D Cooroy to Curra Bruce Highway project is for the Wide Bay-Burnett region, our state, and our nation.
The Bruce Highway connects 58 per cent of the state's population, running up the coast from Brisbane to Cairns. It carries major freight movements between inland production areas and 11 coastal ports and regional centres. It must be a long-term vision of the Liberal National Party to make this piece of infrastructure fit for the 21st century by planning a world-class four-lane high-speed highway connecting Brisbane to Cairns and all communities between.
The Rudd government jeopardised the whole Cooroy to Curra project when they junked the coalition's 2007 election commitment to complete the whole project by 2020. Since returning to office, the coalition has got the Cooroy to Curra project back on track. But even so, without Section D, the job is only half done. Section B, which goes around the nonexistent Traveston Crossing Dam, was constructed before the coalition's return to office. Section A, from Cooroy to Sankeys Road, was constructed by the coalition and opened last month, providing a new 13.5-kilometre, four-lane divided highway from Cooroy to outside Pomona. Section C of the Bruce Highway, between Traveston and Woondum, is well ahead of schedule. We now need a commitment from state and federal governments to fund the biggest project, section D, a 26-kilometre section from Woondum to Curra that skirts around Gympie. Where I come from you do not do half the job. That is why we need to secure funding to construct this nation-building project as soon as possible.
Over 150 kilometres of the Bruce Highway passes through my electorate of Wide Bay. It provides critical linkages for freight transport between the inland primary production areas of North Burnett and South Burnett and the major regional centres of Gympie, Maryborough and Bundaberg. South-East Queensland is expected to grow massively in the coming decades. The number of vehicles using the Bruce Highway is growing by 2.8 per cent each year, with freight volumes set to double by 2026. Graham Richers is the Managing Director of Richers Transport, a transport company servicing the eastern seaboard. Every weekday his fleet requires approximately 130 heavy vehicle movements across the Cooroy to Curra section. He tells me, 'The freight task is increasing every year and, in order to continue to provide safe, efficient and effective road transport services, we, like many other businesses in this area, are seeking a commitment that section D is expedited as quickly as possible.' I could not agree more. That is why I am doing everything I can to ensure governments fast-track section D so transporters, tourists and motorists can reap the benefits.
The Bruce Highway is the main access to the region from the north and south. Each year it contributes $11.5 billion to the Queensland economy and supports over 60,000 jobs. This will grow in the years to come with the emergence of Port of Bundaberg. In order to export produce from South-East Queensland, industry needs to transport goods as quickly and efficiently as possible. This requires separating long-distance freight from local traffic movements. By funding section D, the missing link, we will transform this part of the Bruce Highway into the high-speed, high-volume corridor it was intended to be. Section D will benefit Wide Bay's tourism and agriculture industries by improving access to the Cooloola coast. The flow-on effects of reducing highway bottlenecks are huge, benefiting both supply chains and labour mobility. Section D will provide jobs for the Wide Bay region in the construction phase and boost South-East Queensland productivity once completed.
We do not just do things because they are economically sound. People need decent places to live and raise a family. The Gympie region is set to grow significantly in the coming decades, its population reaching 64,000 by 2036, yet increasing traffic volume and long queues at traffic lights on the highway through Gympie frustrate everyone. The Bruce Highway passes a number of suburban streets and a number of schools in Gympie, causing gridlock on busy days. Gympie locals picking up groceries and taking their kids to school find themselves competing dangerously on a highway with big trucks and cars that have been travelling at high speeds. The RACQ estimates congestion costs the economy $16.5 billion per year, and this figure is set to skyrocket to $53 billion by the year 2031. In their report Motoring matters to every Queenslander, the RACQ strongly advocated funding for section D. The project is expected to cut congestion in Gympie, reducing highway travel times by avoiding six sets of traffic lights, eight different speed zones and two school zones. It will make journeys faster and, more importantly, safer for people using the highway and those living around it.
As a former traffic crash investigator, there is nothing that frustrates me more than a road that locals know is unsafe but politicians thousands of kilometres away in Canberra choose to ignore. In 2014 the Bruce Highway was named and shamed as one of the world's 25 most dangerous roads on a list that included Bolivia's 'death road' and the infamous Siberian 'ice highway'. Since 2011 there have been nine fatalities and over 50 injuries around where section D is, with the Gympie section having the highest crash rate. There are 13,800 vehicles that travel on this highway through Gympie each day, with 173 crashes and 25 deaths from 2003 to 2007. Traffic accidents are a burden on our nation, and one death is too many. They account for around 18 per cent of acute care bed days and 29 per cent of intensive care unit admissions in Queensland hospitals.
Statistics tell us part of a story, but when you make the gut-wrenching walk to someone's doorstep and tell them that their loved one is not coming home you realise the magnitude of it. Each year there is an average of 50 deaths on the Bruce Highway. The RACQ estimates that without future action there will be 350 deaths and 5,000 injuries over the next decade.
The coalition has done much to make the highway safer, including constructing extra overtaking lanes and widening the centre line gap, but we can do more. Section D will reduce head-on crashes, which account for 55 per cent of all fatalities on the Cooroy to Curra section, and ensure that people living in and passing through Wide Bay can get from point A to point B safely.
The floods through Wide Bay show that Queenslanders are strong and resilient people, but the Bruce Highway is the key route for transporting medical supplies, food, fuel and other necessities to affected flood areas. Time and time again the highway has proven to be vulnerable. In the past 20 years the Bruce Highway around Gympie has been cut off at least five times, including a combined seven days in 2011. By investing in the Gympie bypass, section D will be above the Q100 flood level, ensuring supplies can get through in the event of a flood or major weather episode. We can never be sure what the future holds, but section D will give South-East Queensland peace of mind, knowing that in the event of a disaster their main roads are secure.
I made the importance of funding section D clear to Minister Chester today. I want to thank him for his continued interest in Wide Bay and his efforts in making our roads safer. I also wish to thank the mayors and the RDA for their contribution to supporting section D, as well as my state colleagues from Hervey Bay, Maryborough, Gympie, and Burnett. I am continuing to take the fight to Canberra on behalf of our region to ensure the federal government listens, understands and acts to deliver this project. The economic benefits of section D are clear, but the safety of Australians on highways should always be paramount. If we manage to save one life with this project then it will be a job worth doing.
Budget
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:32): I am aggrieved by this government's out-of-touch budget. It is a divided government and it is a dysfunctional government. The government says there are better days ahead, but then the Prime Minister turns around and hands a tax cut to millionaires and a tax hike for every working Australian. As the shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection I am aggrieved not only by this government's budget generally but by the ill-conceived and poorly planned policy relating to immigration and border protection.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has been handed scathing report after scathing report in the last year, all detailing mismanagement committed under the watch of the current Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, a tick-and-flick minister very far removed from the detail of his department. The Australian National Audit Office Auditor-General's report, Offshore processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea: procurement of garrison support and welfare services, is littered with instances of errors and mistakes by the former immigration minister, who is now Treasurer, as well as by the current immigration minister.
The second scathing ANAO report was Offshore processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea: contract management of garrison support and welfare services, tabled in January of this year. The report found as to payments that:
… $1.1 billion was approved by DIBP officers who did not have the required authorisation; and for the remaining $1.1 billion there was no departmental record of who authorised the payments.
Rounding out the trifecta of condemnation from the ANAO is the report The Australian Border Force's use of statutory powers. It found the Australian Border Force had conducted unlawful and inappropriate searches of passengers at international airports, routinely questioning people without documenting their legal authority to do so. The Australian Border Force officers had used coercive powers without completing the required training. All this dysfunction is even before we even delve into the downfalls found in this year's budget and their impacts on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection portfolio.
I am aggrieved at how this government's budget hurts every Australian family. It fails to put Australian jobs first or to guarantee genuine investment in skills and training. The government rushed to make their announcement on changes to temporary skilled migration. The minister's 457 visa announcement has since proved to be a con job. Eighteen occupations which had not been used in the previous 10 years were removed from the government's list of occupations, including deer farmers and detectives. The government wants to be congratulated for its apparent crackdown, but its changes barely make a difference to those local people struggling to get a job. The minister did not even undertake appropriate consultation with businesses and the government has been besieged by industry, pointing out the unintended consequences of its changes—especially in the area of science and research. Departmental officials confirmed flaws within the government's own policy in Senate estimates, with the secretary of the department conceding, 'There have been consequences we need to work through.'
The Turnbull government is all over the place on temporary skilled migration, and is already walking away from its so-called 457 crackdown by planning to add jobs to its skilled migration visa list. The minister and the Prime Minister have been very quiet in relation to their botched announcement as it begins to unravel, forcing others to concede the government's own shortfalls. A spokesperson for the communication minister was quoted in The Australian Financial Review on 17 May:
The list will be updated on 1 July and thereafter twice annually, to ensure it reflects genuine skills gaps and to address any unintended consequences.
The government's Skilling Australia Fund is also a con job, with funds for skills and training dependent on bringing in overseas workers.
The Skilling Australia Fund replaces the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. This is simply a name change as they attempt to veil a cut by the government by stealth. In reality, it sees a cut of more than $166 million from skills and training in 2017-18 alone, and over $600 million in cuts across the forward estimate period by the Turnbull government.
Only Labor will crack down on 457 visa rorts and build a skilled Australian workforce, reducing our reliance on overseas workers to fill skill shortages. Labor is the only party serious about getting Australians properly trained and into good and local jobs. Only Labor's proposed SMART visa will ensure that educators, innovators and researchers of global standing, the best and brightest, will have the opportunity to develop their ideas in Australia.
The Turnbull government announced their 'lodge or leave' policy on 21 May, with the minister grandstanding with his claims of 'fake refugees'. This was the first time that we heard of the government's arbitrary deadline of 1 October for asylum seekers living in Australia to lodge their applications, a deadline which the government has not even attempted to justify or to give a rationale for. Estimates also revealed that this government's budget modelling is based on estimates that 2,500 asylum seekers will lose benefits in 2017-18. The immigration minister should be upfront about the impact of these budget measures and not simply try to hide them in the back of the budget book. As for the minister's claims of fake refugees, it is a claim that I note he has failed to repeat since he pulled it out on the soapbox on 21 May.
I am disappointed in this government's budget. This continues in relation to the cuts to jobs in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The budget papers claim that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is set to lose 245 staff in the coming financial year. But the devil is always in the detail. The previous budget, 2016-17, stated that the department was going to cut its average staffing level number by 305, but Senate estimates showed that the department has actually cut 509 employees from its workforce since 1 July 2016. That is 509 employees who can no longer process visas, no longer crack down on visa rorts and no longer protect our borders. It is simply not good enough. It is no wonder that visa-processing time frames have been blowing out. Senate estimates confirms the processing times for visas have ballooned out between July 2016 and 2017. Given their track record over the last year, how many employees are really going to be slashed from the department this coming year? The cuts have already struck home in Sydney at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's Sydney service centre, where more than 220 departmental employees take calls about visas and citizenship and respond to other compliance queries. The Community and Public Sector Union's national president, Rupert Evans, shared the concerns of the employees themselves, saying:
They're concerned not just at losing their jobs, but the serious security and other risks posed by farming their work out for the private sector to chase a profit.
I am aggrieved by these cuts to the department, not only because of their impact on visa-processing services and border protection but because of their impact on those individuals who lose their jobs and their families. It is no wonder there is widespread low morale throughout the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, as reported by the ABC in the last couple of days. A survey asking departmental staff to rate the leadership skills of their bosses and reflect on their overall job satisfaction showed results 'significantly lower' than any other Australian Public Service results. An internal review of the survey said:
Staff have become increasingly disassociated from the department's culture and achievements and its leadership.
Departmental staff feel as though their work is not being valued or that they are not being listened to, and it all harks back to the lack of leadership by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the member for Dickson.
Following the cybersecurity follow-up audit by the Australian National Audit Office, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection conceded in Senate estimates it is not cyber-resilient, nor is it cybersecure. Departmental officials revealed immigration is regularly a target for cyberattacks. I am aggrieved as to how the minister has allowed a situation where his department has repeatedly failed to comply with the top four mitigation strategies and to meet its cyber-resilience deadlines. Its original target date to achieve compliance was 30 June 2014. That is three years of putting the personal data of Australian citizens and international travellers at risk, at a time when cybersecurity should be of utmost priority. The minister cannot afford to sit on his hands any longer and needs to ensure the department is cyber-resilient and the personal information of Australians and international travellers is not compromised.
It is simply not good enough. Who can ever forget the government's failure to deliver the fast-response boats, which have been delayed yet again, to the people of Cairns and the Torres Strait? The minister, the department and this government should simply do much better in the area of immigration and border protection.
Environmental Organisations
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (18:42): Australian taxpayers deserve much greater accountability and transparency concerning the subsidies they provide to politically active environmental organisations than often, and in some cases habitually, engage in criminal behaviour. In this grievance debate, I am calling on all my colleagues in this parliament to ensure this farce comes to an end. Taxpayer subsidies for many environmental organisations exist because the law recognises that work to protect or improve the environment is a charitable activity, and the subsidy provided to them by the taxpayer, via a tax break for that purpose, is clearly valid for the great majority of the 600-plus organisations around the country that now enjoy it. How it works is that donations to environmental groups that have achieved, via an application to the environment department, what is known as deductible gift recipient, or DGR, status can offer tax breaks to their donors, which means Australian taxpayers forgo the revenue. In return, what the taxpayer gets, ostensibly and often in practice, is on-the-ground work to protect threatened species or to restore disturbed landscapes or through the conduct of research or the provision of educational materials that further such causes. These endeavours are formally and quite reasonably regarded by both the courts and the legislatures in Australia, as indeed they are in many parts of the world, as charitable activities, worthy of that sort of support.
The problem is that some of these organisations—and they tend to be some of the largest of these organisations—have become not so much providers of direct environmental benefit, as would be perceived by most Australians via on-the-ground work to protect threatened fauna or flora or via education or research work to inform public debate, but instead have become virtually full-time and vigorous political activists, with flagrant and repeated disregard for the laws of the land. Their serial criminal behaviour is well documented, and I will give some examples. The scale of their disregard for the statutory constraints on political behaviour is, given the totally unsatisfactory state of their supervision under the systems we have in place, simply unknown. But, given their indisputable record of general lawlessness, law-breaking in the party political context certainly cannot be discounted and needs to be more rigorously audited.
In the first instance, we should not tolerate the continuation of tax breaks for organisations that break the law. For example, Greenpeace has DGR status. In 2011, two Greenpeace staffers, in the dead of night, destroyed a crop planted by the CSIRO here in the ACT because it was genetically modified. They were convicted and sentenced to nine months in prison, suspended. Greenpeace subsequently paid $282,560. What proportion of that restitution was drawn from the organisation's taxpayer funded subsidy we cannot know. The judge said that the crime was conducted 'at the instigation of, or with the backing of, those who are ultimately responsible for the operation of Greenpeace Australia'. Yet Greenpeace retains its DGR status and its charity status, despite being a serial offender, as was made clear years before the crop incident. A Greenpeace submission to an ATO discussion paper in 2003 said:
We have blocked train lines, occupied Lucas Heights, trespassed at the Lodge, illegally raised banners at Parliament House, amongst many other activities … This history of civil disobedience is part of a much bigger history of individuals and organizations prepared to violate the law …
An outfit called CounterAct, part of Friends of the Earth, runs training camps to teach green activists how to frustrate lawful development and get arrested. Yet Friends of the Earth retains DGR status and its taxpayer subsidy. Lock the Gate, which has DGR and charity status, blockaded a gas exploration operation near Grafton in 2013. Eighteen people were arrested on 25 charges. In 2014, Lock the Gate took part in a blockade of the property of a dairy farmer at Bentley after he had allowed Metgasco to drill a well on his land. A blockade of a proposed liquid natural gas facility near Broome was led by the Wilderness Society, a DGR, and cost WA taxpayers $1 million to manage. The Leard Forest Alliance, composed of five registered environmental organisations—namely, Greenpeace, Lock the Gate, the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth and the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales—has habitually and unlawfully obstructed Whitehaven Coal's operation at Maules Creek, where there have been over 350 arrests. More recently, there has been periodic endemic illegal behaviour at Abbot Point in Queensland in protests over the proposed Adani coalmine. Australian taxpayers should not be subsidising this sort of illegal behaviour. If the members of these organisations want to illegally disrupt lawful business activity, that is their business and it ought to be at their risk. It ought not to be part funded by the government and, by extension, the taxpayer.
The environment department currently has responsibility for the Register of Environmental Organisations. The department made clear in the recent parliamentary inquiry into the register:
We cannot compel—we have no evidence-gathering powers or the capacity to coerce information from somebody through the obtaining of warrants or any of those sorts of mechanisms that might be available to other regulators.
It was also made clear to the inquiry that the department does not require audited financial statements from those on the register, except via specific individual demand and that, insofar as those organisations have to report—if they do at all—the department runs checks against about 10 per cent of them a year.
It is a near certainty that the vast majority of the 600-plus organisations listed on the register will be totally honest, hardworking, community based, altruistic, on-ground operators trying to improve Australia's environment. There is no doubt about it. However, for many of the big outfits, where the bulk of that effort is in political and social activism, the current arrangements are little short of farce, quite frankly, and the Australia taxpayer deserves better. Responsibility for the Register of Environmental Organisations ought to be transferred as a matter of urgency to the Australian Taxation Office, and the examination of the largest of them ought to be annual and forensic, with special regard to their involvement in or sponsorship of illegal activities as well as the exact nature of those political activities.
Organisations that are granted DGR status have a very important role to play. I would be very surprised if anybody in this House, regardless of their political colours, would deny benevolent organisations that DGR status. Taxpayer subsidisation should take place where organisations make a better world. There is a right, indeed a constitutional right, for individuals, groups, organisations to communicate politically, to be politically active. I do not think anybody in this House would deny that right, even if we disagree with some of their motives or their stances. I do not think we would deny the right; in fact, we would fight for that right. But we should not tolerate the Australian taxpayer subsidising political activism by environmental groups that purport to be helping the environment when in fact they are engaging in nothing but political activism. That defies the very principle of what DGR is meant to be about and it undermines the very sector that our environmental groups work within.
Sciacca, Mr Concetto Antonio 'Con' AO
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (18:52): I came to this grievance debate in the hope of addressing solely the issue of the Northern Territory intervention, which of course has its 10th anniversary today. Sadly, I am going to firstly address the passing of Con Sciacca. Con, as members of this House may know—new members may not—was elected to the House of Representatives as the member for Bowman in Queensland in 1987 so he came to the parliament the same year as myself. Like me, he was defeated in 1996 and, like me, he was re-elected in 1998. He was defeated in the general election 2004. Con was a Sicilian, a migrant who came to Australia in 1951. He was born in 1947. I came to know Con very well. He was in a different faction to me. In those days, factional rivalry was pretty strong in this place, but we shared many things in common—moments of sadness, moments of joy.
I remember vividly the contest between Paul Keating and Bob Hawke for the position of Prime Minister. I remember the first time that Paul Keating challenged Bob Hawke. There were people who were in Bob's corner. Con and I were among them, and Bob won that ballot. In the second ballot it was slightly different because the support that had been provided by senior members of the then government to Bob Hawke had waned, and I recall that I, with Con and three or four others, formed a little group committed to making sure we would try and get Bob to win that ballot. So we met with the Prime Minister. We were very clear with him about what our prospects might be of being successful, but, despite the fact that senior members of the government had retreated from their support for Bob, Con was courageous in making sure that the world knew that there were a group of us that were going to do our utmost to get Bob Hawke elected.
We fought very hard—history will show that we lost the caucus ballot very narrowly—and, through that, we forged a great friendship. Con later had a number of roles and, like me, became a parliamentary secretary in 1990 when parliamentary secretaries were reintroduced to this place. Eventually, unlike me, he became a minister relatively early; I had to wait 18 years. He became the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in March 1994 and was in that position until 1996, when he changed to a different portfolio and was Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Superannuation. Con built an enviable reputation for his work as Minister for Veterans' Affairs and around—as I am sure some of you will recall—Australia Remembers. He drove that process and was awarded, if my memory serves me correctly, life membership of the RSL—not bad for a Sicilian who was not himself a serving man. But he was given great recognition for his commitment, for his ability to communicate with people and for his belief in the veteran community of this country.
Con, as the Leader of the Opposition has said today, was a much-loved member of our Labor family—a mentor, a friend and a constant source of wise counsel for prime ministers, premiers, generations of Labor parliamentarians and, indeed, people in public life across the political spectrum. I am really sad today because Con leaves behind a family: his wife, Karen; his daughter, Zina; his adored granddaughter, Grace; and his stepsons, Daniel and Nicholas Toth.
Con fought for what he believed in. You get these Trojans in our movement, just as I am sure there are similar sorts of people on the other side of politics, who devote their life to trying to do the best they possibly can for every Australian in working for them as a member of parliament. In his case, he also brought with him a great deal of depth in his background and a great love and commitment to the labour movement. It is very hard, I think, for those who are not in the Labor family to understand the depth of the commitment that people like Con have. I know he is going to be sadly missed by all his friends and acquaintances. He will certainly be sadly missed in the councils of Queensland—and, when I say 'the councils', I mean the meeting rooms of Queensland. His advice to—indeed, sometimes badgering of—senior leaders to do the right thing will be missed. I do not have much more I can say about that, because I am just so sad.
Earlier, when he was a parliamentarian, Con and his wife lost a son. I remember well the emotion in this parliament around that loss and the support that Con and his family were able to get out of what was happening here, and the fact that the parliament came together around him. I remember, importantly, a church service at St Christopher's Cathedral, just down the road from here. Con, as many will know, was a Mick, like me, and it was very important for him and his family that due regard was given to the loss of his son in the appropriate way in a church. For that experience, I am eternally grateful. I don't want to say any more.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Thank you, Member for Lingiari. I would like to associate myself with your remarks and offer my condolences to the Sciacca family. He was an extraordinary Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I remember it well. Thank you very much.
City of South Perth
Mr IRONS (Swan) (19:01): Even though I did not know Con, I was aware of him. At the time, he was a well-known identity in Australian politics. I, too, send my condolences to the family and I congratulate the member for Lingiari on his heartfelt speech. I am sure that many other members of this place will concur with that sentiment.
I will move on to my speech. I have a couple of grievances to raise in the grievance debate tonight. The first relates to the future priorities that the city of South Perth is setting for its residents and how these relate to the priorities that the community holds. As the member for Swan, I have a great relationship with the City of South Perth, I would say, and I note that the partnership between the federal government and the city has been a good one for the residents in this area of South Perth. By listening to the residents of South Perth and working with the council, we have secured funding agreements for the Manning Road on-ramp and Mends Street upgrade, which will make a big difference to the local area. I note that both these proposals were enshrined in city of South Perth planning documents with the support of the community, and this is the model we should be replicating for future projects in the city of South Perth. I will also add that, as is well known, my wife is a councillor with the City of South Perth. I have a great relationship with the councillors. They are all active in their community and they are all pro looking after their community extremely well. There is a good relationship between the city and the federal government.
For the benefit of the House, I would like to do a quick overview of the city's funding in recent months. In the second round of the Stronger Communities Program, the City of South Perth and its residents were very successful. The City of South Perth received $17,750 to go towards street furniture for the Manning Community Hub; the Curtin University Boat Club received $20,000 to purchase a boat trolley and trailer so they could expand their club's membership and compete on other areas of the river; the Salter Point sea scouts received just over $5,000 to assist in their kitchen refurbishment project; and the South Perth Senior Citizens Centre received just over $18,000 for the purchase of new chairs. The Lions Club of Manning and the Rotaract Club of South Perth were also recipients in the last round of Volunteer Grants, and it was great to be able to welcome representatives from each club to join me at an afternoon tea in honour of the community work they do in Swan. I was also joined by the Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Christian Porter.
Perhaps the most significant funding announcements for the City of South Perth though, is the funding received for Manning Road, which I have been banging on about since I first came to this place in 2007, the same time as you, Deputy Speaker Coulton. As we know, persistence helps. After 10 years we finally got the funding through the coalition government. Unfortunately, it was not supported by the new Labor state government, but they have come to the table now that the Treasurer has done some negotiating on some extra funding for WA because of the GST. The coalition government has committed $28 million of the $35 million project, with the state government funding the residual $7 million. This is a project that has been a high priority for the City of South Perth residents and, as I have said, I have continued to advocate for it during my whole time as a local federal member.
However, in recent times, there has been some concern amongst ratepayers that the City of South Perth is pushing forward with new priorities that are out of step with the priorities of the residents of South Perth. The first example is the Westralian Centre proposal for the foreshore, which is a $7 million plan to build a precinct building around the flagpole on the foreshore in South Perth. The city have been pushing this proposal in one form or another for a couple of years and it aligns with their South Perth Foreshore Strategy and Management Plan, which plans for a civic building on the foreshore. However, this has always been a sensitive issue for the South Perth residents, who are protective of their foreshore and are instinctively opposed to attempts to build on it. They are instinctively opposed to anything on their foreshore. I know that this protectionism is borne out by the fact that, in 2013, the Telstra tower, which was a necessary item due to the 300,000 people that used to attend the foreshore Australia Day event, was mooted to go to the foreshore, but the residents had their way and, through the assistance of the then minister for communications—who is now the Prime Minister—we managed to get that Telstra tower stopped. So there is a strong passion to have nothing on the foreshore except what the residents want. I attended a special council meeting on this subject and the feeling of the community was made known in no uncertain terms to the council, who were all there that night. It seems to me that, if the City of South Perth are going to proceed with this, they are going to have to put it in another location. It would be a good facility, because it would have a museum that it celebrated the 10th Light Horse Regiment, which I know the member for Lyons would know all about because he is originally from Fremantle. He would know all about the 10th Light Horse.
The second project in which the City of South Perth is pushing against the feelings of many residents is the South Perth Station Precinct. As a tier of government, the city has long held the view, and has been alone in this view, that there should be a train station adjacent to Richardson Park in South Perth and they have been introducing high-rise planning regulations to increase the population density and generate the need for such a station. Many residents are against the station and feel like the city is trying to create a problem to get a solution that it wants. The city is proceeding in the face of the residents' views. When the city initially conducted the consultation on the South Perth train station many years ago, they received majority opposition from the area surveyed. They have since conducted the survey again, but what they have done is use a wider catchment to try and get the majority support and the results that they wanted. They are using that survey to justify their plans. Some of these councils are pretty tricky, aren't they? I picked up the concern of residents to these proposals and, in the last month, conducted my own surveys of residents in the City of South Perth on future priorities. I must inform the chamber that the residents' priorities are completely different to that of the City of South Perth. Priorities for residents include better access points to the freeway, an upgrade of the Canning Highway and proceeding with a City of South Perth aquatic centre, which is something that I have banged on about for a long time. The City of South Perth aquatic centre is a top priority for most of the residents I have spoken to in South Perth.
An honourable member: Put it on the foreshore.
Mr IRONS: I must just clarify that it is not going on the foreshore. It is definitely not going on the foreshore. Thanks for the member's suggestion for that.
The other thing that I want to get to—I feel like I will run out of time unless the member for Lyons can propose an extension—is matters in Belmont and my second grievance of the night. My grievance relates to the matter of the Labor Party in Belmont in my electorate and an act that has greatly mislead the electors of Belmont. For at least the last four years, the Labor candidate for Belmont—who is now the member—has been running a very misleading campaign for the Belmont police station to be turned into a police station that is staffed for 24 hours a day. The Labor member in question even used a front community group, which she made herself president of—taken straight out of the Craig Thomson playbook; more on that later—to push for this 24-hour police station in the lead-up to her election in the state election at March. Among her statements on the matter were:
We have written to the Minister for Police and the Commissioner of Police to ask for their support because we know that a 24 hour police station is something that our community wants.
Another statement:
All citizens have the fundamental right to safety and security in their own home and we believe that a 24 Hour Police Station is essential to crime reduction in Belmont.
Today I wrote to the Minister for Police Liza Harvey and the Commissioner of Police Karl O’Callaghan, asking that they support a 24 hour police station for Belmont.
Another statement:
Today I wrote to the Minister for Police Liza Harvey and the Commissioner of Police Karl O’Callaghan, asking that they support a 24 hour police station for Belmont. Residents of Belmont know that crime doesn’t just happen in business hours …
That is on her Facebook page.
Another statement:
During the recent council elections, an overwhelming number of candidates declared support for a 24 hour police station. Unfortunately, the Council has failed to show the leadership on this issue that our community needs.
I do not know how the council has anything to do with appointing or opening the police station for 24 hours, but they will throw the blame around where they can! Again, she said:
Crime does not only happen between 9am-5pm, and I will continue to lobby the State Government for a 24-hour police station in Belmont.
That was in the Southern Gazette on 2 August 2016.
But it turns out that this was all a misleading campaign that she used to get elected. When the new state Labor government recently announced a series of police stations that would become 24-hour police stations, Belmont was not included. Belmont missed out! While the police stations at Armadale, Cockburn and Ellenbrook will all become 24-hour stations, Belmont will not. And to top it off, since being elected, Ms Rowe has not even updated her beloved Belmont Community News page. There is not one update to break it to the community group that she has been unsuccessful in her campaign for the 24-hour police station.
The member for Belmont clearly no longer cares about her campaign for a 24-hour police station now that she has been elected. She simply does not have the influence that the Labor members representing Armadale, Cockburn and Ellenbrook have with the McGowan government. In 2015 she accused the City of Belmont for failing to provide leadership on this issue, but she has failed herself—a huge fail!
She also promised that after the election she would resign as president of the community group, but it is 100 days and her web page still shows that. I seek leave to table this document.
Leave not granted.
Mr IRONS: What a protection racket! A protection racket run by the member for Lyons for the member for Belmont! They are running a protection racket, Mr Deputy Speaker! (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier. 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 19:11.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Media Monitoring
(Question No. 716)
Mr Fitzgibbon to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources:
Further to the answer to question in writing No. 655 ( Hansard , 29 March 2017, page 162) does his department post to the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister' s website all (a) media releases, (b) public interview transcripts, and (c) public speeches, delivered by the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister; if not, who determines which of the above are posted and which are withheld.
Mr Joyce: The answer to the honourable member' s question is as follows:
The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources publishes content to the Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister' s ministerial website upon request from his office where in line with requirements under the Australian Public Service Values.
Media Monitoring
(Question No. 717)
Mr Fitzgibbon to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources:
Further to the answer to question in writing No. 659 ( Hansard , 29 March 2017, pages 162–63) does his department post to the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources' website all (a) media releases, (b) public interview transcripts, and (c) public speeches, delivered by the Assistant Minister to the Minister for Agriculture and Water; if not, who determines which of the above are posted and which are withheld.
Mr Joyce: The answer to the honourable member' s question is as follows:
The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources publishes content to the Assistant Minister for Water Resources' ministerial website upon request from her office where in line with requirements under the Australian Public Service Values.