The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (09:31): I present report No. 14 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business, and private members' business on Monday 14 August 2017. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report are placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 8 August 2017.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 8 August 2017, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 14 August 2017, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources:
Statement on committee ' s visit to New Zealand
The Committee determined that statements may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am
Speech time limits—
Mr R. J. Wilson—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR BANDT: To present a bill for an act to amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, and for related purposes.
(Notice given 14 June 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MR KATTER: To present a bill for an act to require the equal treatment of the religious certification of products, and for related purposes.
(Notice given 28 March 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 MR KATTER : To present a bill for an act to establish a Commission of Inquiry into the coal seam gas industry in Australia, and for related purposes.
(Notice given 20 June 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
4 MR KATTER: To present a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in relation to gifts from foreign sources, and for related purposes.
(Notice given 8 August 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
5 MR WILKIE: To present a bill for an act relating to the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Australians and all people in Australia, and for related purposes.
(Notice given 8 August 2017.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
6 MR LEESER: To move:
That this House:
(1) strongly condemns the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) for:
(a) ongoing development and testing of illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programs including intercontinental ballistic missile tests in June and July 2017;
(b) destabilising the Korean peninsula and Asia-Pacific region more widely through aggressive acts and rhetoric particularly against South Korea, Japan, the United States and Australia; and
(c) significant and ongoing human rights abuses committed against the people of North Korea;
(2) acknowledges the actions of the Australian Government in maintaining diplomatic and economic pressure on the DPRK including through:
(a) co-sponsoring United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2321, placing additional United Nations sanctions on the DPRK;
(b) co-sponsoring UNSC Resolution 2270, condemning North Korea's nuclear test and long-range ballistic missile launch in 2016; and
(c) imposing financial sanctions and travel bans on five North Korean individuals for their association with North Korean weapons of mass destruction or missiles program in June 2017;
(3) calls upon the DPRK to:
(a) abandon its missile and nuclear program;
(b) use the resources spent on its nuclear and missile programs to improve the livelihood of its citizens and implement policies for economic development to better the situation for the North Korean people;
(c) adhere to multiple UNSC resolutions; and
(d) re-join the international community and contribute to peace and stability in the region, rather than deepening tensions and the insecurity of other states; and
(4) acknowledges China's position of influence in relation to the DPRK and encourages China to:
(a) pressure the DPRK to adhere to international agreements;
(b) continue to engage with the international community to decrease tensions on the Korean peninsula, and
(c) begin constructive talks to permanently dismantle the DPRK's nuclear capabilities.
(Notice given 8 August 2017.)
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Leeser—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue at a later hour.
7 MS RISHWORTH: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the importance of the Murray Darling Basin Plan (MDBP) in returning the river to health;
(2) condemns any plans to walk away from the MDBP that will undermine the health of the system and the rivers;
(3) notes the good work of the Member for Watson in his former role as the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, who was able to deliver a once in a century agreement of the MDBP;
(4) expresses concern that the Member for New England, as the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, is walking away from the plan by refusing to return 450 gigalitres of water to the Basin;
(5) recognises that:
(a) removing too much water from the river is bad for irrigators and communities, and devastating for the environment in the long term; and
(b) South Australians in particular deserve the water they were promised; and
(6) reinstates its commitment to implement the complete MDBP.
(Notice given 28 November 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Ms Rishworth—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS RYAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the number of older Australians choosing to live in retirement villages is increasing faster than any other age-specific housing option;
(b) the revelations in the recent Four Corners program that appeared to show older Australians being exploited were shocking;
(c) many older Australians are finding it difficult to deal with the complex and confusing contracts offered to them by retirement village management;
(d) the excessive exit fees and practices used by retirement village companies when older Australians decide to leave a retirement villages are unacceptable; and
(e) older Australians should not be exploited; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) commit to a national approach for the regulation of retirement living facilities; and
(b) adopt consistency on retirement village contracts, with stronger consumer protections.
(Notice given 8 August 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Ryan—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR EVANS: To move:
That this House:
(1) condemns the Queensland Government for its statement: 'the State Government would no longer be constrained or bound by free trade agreements';
(2) notes that:
(a) Australia's trade agreements guarantee Queensland businesses preferential access to Chile, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States markets;
(b) Queensland's exports were worth $62.6 billion to the state's economy in 2015-16;
(c) in April 2017, the Queensland Treasurer stated: 'one in five jobs in our state relies on our export performance'; and
(d) the Queensland Government's decision to not abide by its international commitments threatens the access Queensland exporters have to international markets and the jobs that rely on them; and
(3) calls on the Queensland Government to honour its commitments and abandon its anti-trade position to ensure that Queensland export businesses do not lose access to these crucial global markets.
(Notice given 8 August 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Evans—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MS MCGOWAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there is electorate wide support for renewable energy;
(b) in March 2017, the Australia Institute reported that in a national poll 67 per cent think that that Australia is moving into renewable energy too slowly and 73 per cent supported setting a new renewable energy target for 2030;
(c) the Government has committed to ensuring that 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity generation in 2020 will be from renewable sources;
(d) the transition to a renewable energy future will require high levels of social consensus and engagement;
(e) international best practice has demonstrated that community ownership has become a well established mechanism to build consensus and assist the transition to increased renewable energy sources;
(f) Australian households are amongst the high adopters in the world of photovoltaics solar, driven primarily to help control their own energy costs;
(g) community owned renewable energy projects that allow communities to reduce their energy costs, or even make income from power production, would enable these benefits to be felt across the broader community, addressing the Government's energy policy priority of security, reliability and affordability;
(h) the absence of clarity in Government policy has led to many communities 'going it alone' to secure their energy future; and
(i) continued investment and innovation in the sector requires a clear message of support from the Government; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) recognise that the community energy sector can play a significant role in the Government achieving its policy trifecta of secure, affordable and reliable energy; and
(b) demonstrate this recognition with a dedicated funding program for community energy projects to support the design and implemention and management of their own community specific integrated energy plans and projects.
(Notice given 13 June 2017.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms McGowan—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
NORTH KOREA: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mr Leeser—That this House:
(1) strongly condemns the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) for:
(a) ongoing development and testing of illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programs including intercontinental ballistic missile tests in June and July 2017;
(b) destabilising the Korean peninsula and Asia-Pacific region more widely through aggressive acts and rhetoric particularly against South Korea, Japan, the United States and Australia; and
(c) significant and ongoing human rights abuses committed against the people of North Korea;
(2) acknowledges the actions of the Australian Government in maintaining diplomatic and economic pressure on the DPRK including through:
(a) co-sponsoring United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2321, placing additional United Nations sanctions on the DPRK;
(b) co-sponsoring UNSC Resolution 2270, condemning North Korea's nuclear test and long-range ballistic missile launch in 2016; and
(c) imposing financial sanctions and travel bans on five North Korean individuals for their association with North Korean weapons of mass destruction or missiles program in June 2017;
(3) calls upon the DPRK to:
(a) abandon its missile and nuclear program;
(b) use the resources spent on its nuclear and missile programs to improve the livelihood of its citizens and implement policies for economic development to better the situation for the North Korean people;
(c) adhere to multiple UNSC resolutions; and
(d) re-join the international community and contribute to peace and stability in the region, rather than deepening tensions and the insecurity of other states; and
(4) acknowledges China's position of influence in relation to the DPRK and encourages China to:
(a) pressure the DPRK to adhere to international agreements;
(b) continue to engage with the international community to decrease tensions on the Korean peninsula, and
(c) begin constructive talks to permanently dismantle the DPRK's nuclear capabilities.
(Notice given 8 August 2017.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
4 MR BURKE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the international community came together to recognise the importance of our oceans at the 2017 United Nations Ocean Conference on 5 to 9 June 2017 in New York;
(b) that the oceans are under increasing pressure and other nations have started to establish protected areas;
(c) that Australia cannot afford to leave its oceans exposed given the impacts of climate change, including the severe coral reef bleaching, unprecedented mangrove dieback and significant loss of kelp forests already seen around Australia;
(d) the progress globally by other countries to put in place marine national parks, such as the:
(i) Ross Sea region Marine Protected Area (MPA), declared by 24 nations of the world, including Australia, in 2016 to protect 1,549,000 square kilometres of the Antarctic high seas in high level International Union for Conservation of Nature, Category II (IUCN II) National Park protection;
(ii) Papahãnaumokuãkea Marine National Monument, declared by the United States of America (USA) in 2006 and expanded in 2016 to protect 1,508,870 square kilometres of Hawaiian Islands and atolls in high level IUCN II protection;
(iii) Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, declared by the USA in 2009 and expanded in 2014 to protect 1,270,000 square kilometres in high level IUCN II protection; and
(iv) Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve, declared by the United Kingdom in 2015 to protect 834,334 square kilometres around the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific in high level IUCN II protection;
(e) that Labor's 2012 Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (CMRN):
(i) is the world's largest network;
(ii) put Australia at the forefront of ocean conservation globally, with other countries following suit; and
(iii) was based on science and extensive consultation, with Labor holding more public and stakeholder meetings which were attended by more people and received more submissions than the Government's recent review;
(f) the Government's own review of the CMRN found that extensive:
(i) science went into the development of the CMRN and recognised the scientifically proven benefits of MNP IUCN II zones; and
(ii) consultation went into the development of the CMRN, stating there was in fact a considerable amount of 'consultation fatigue' expressed by many stakeholders; and
(g) that after 15 years of process, regional businesses and industry leaders are seeking certainty with the completion of the CMRN; and
(2) calls on the Government to honour its domestic and international obligations, and to bring the CMRN that was declared in 2012 into operation without further delay, and with no reduction of MNP IUCN II zone protection.
(Notice given 14 June 2017.)
Time allotted—35 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Burke—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 5 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 DR ALY: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Western Australia has consistently been neglected by the Government;
(b) despite promising $860 million during the federal election campaign for road and rail projects in Western Australia, the Government will instead dedicate just over $40 million for much needed projects;
(c) the Government has failed to deliver key infrastructure funding in Western Australia; and
(d) families and businesses in Western Australia continue to be disadvantaged by a government that ignores them; and
(2) condemns the Government for its failure to deliver on its infrastructure promises for West Australians; and
(3) calls on the Prime Minister to explain why West Australians are consistently neglected, ignored and ripped off by the Government.
(Notice given 13 February 2017.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Dr Aly—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 MR HILL: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that 8 August 2017 is the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which has grown from its initial five members to a key regional association comprising ten of Australia's neighbours and partners;
(2) congratulates ASEAN on five decades of patient and effective work promoting regional peace and stability while advancing economic growth, social progress and cultural development;
(3) notes that:
(a) considered collectively, ASEAN countries are Australia's third largest trading partner, with current two-way trade surpassing $100 billion annually since 2014;
(b) more than 65 per cent of ASEAN's population is under 35 years old, presenting a growth opportunity across the region; and
(c) Australia's regional aid programs focusing on economic growth and human security help ensure our commitments to ASEAN countries in support of economic integration are met;
(4) welcomes the:
(a) strong partnership between Australia and ASEAN, established and deepened over 43 years; and
(b) advancement of Australia's status as a dialogue partner and the appointment of an Australian Ambassador to ASEAN;
(5) encourages the Government to place the highest priority on the 2018 ASEAN-Australia Special Summit; and
(6) calls on the Government to make the most of the opportunity presented by the 2018 ASEAN-Australia Special Summit to reaffirm and strengthen Australia's strategic partnership with ASEAN, and to identify practical actions whereby Australia can deepen its collaboration in support of ASEAN's future success.
(Notice given 20 June 2017.)
Time allotted—50 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Hill—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 MS KEAY: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the retail trades industry is the second largest employment category in Australia, it employs 1.2 million, or one in nine, Australians and 52 per cent of these workers have no post school qualification;
(b) the Fair Work Commission's (FWC's) decision to cut penalty rates in the retail trade will hit those most powerless to change jobs;
(c) the take home pay of hundreds of thousands of workers will be cut because of the FWC decision to cut Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for the retail trade;
(d) workers affected are being treated as second class citizens and their work is not being valued;
(e) whilst a few jobs may be created on the margins of the economy, the removal of these workers' spending power from the economy will override any minimal jobs growth; and
(f) many families will struggle all over the country because of this short sighted decision;
(2) condemns Government Members and Senators who called for cuts to penalty rates and their continuous pressuring of the FWC to reduce penalty rates; and
(3) calls on:
(a) Government Members and Senators to stand with Labor to protect low paid workers take home pay; and
(b) the House to support Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, to amend the Fair Work Act 2009.
(Notice given 28 February 2017.
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms Keay—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
BILLS
Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (09:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This is an important bill and it is obviously the case that the government is particularly interested and continues to be interested in making sure that we can keep our borders safe. My department, including its operational enforcement arm, the Australian Border Force, supports a broad range of activities that are vital for the prosperity and security of our nation. Facilitation of international trade, the supply of skilled labour for our domestic economy, business relationships, revenue collection, law enforcement and national security outcomes, travel and tourism and community protection are all important elements in building a strong and cohesive society.
To carry out these functions, my department obtains information from individuals, industry, other sectors of government and foreign partners. Some of this information is highly sensitive and must be carefully managed. We must ensure that it is only used and disclosed for legitimate purposes.
The Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 clarifies the secrecy and disclosure provisions in the Australian Border Force Act 2015 (the ABF Act) to reflect the policy intent of those provisions.
Part 6 of the ABF Act establishes these important secrecy and disclosure provisions, similar to provisions that were in place within the former Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and a range of other Commonwealth agencies. These protections prohibited the unauthorised making of a record or disclosure of information. Breach of these requirements is punishable by imprisonment for two years.
This bill will clarify part 6 and related provisions to reflect the original intent of the legislation, which is to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of information that could cause harm to the national or public interest.
Mishandling of information can cause significant damage to our national security, public safety, law enforcement capability or our economy. Individuals can also suffer serious detriment where personal and sensitive information is inappropriately disclosed.
The secrecy and disclosure provisions in part 6 of the ABF Act were adapted from the model in place for the former Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. However, this model has not kept pace with the developments in the modern border environment. This environment is complex and dynamic, and updated legislative settings are required to facilitate the evolving work of my department.
The aim of the measures in this bill, therefore, is to ensure that Immigration and Border Protection information is provided with the necessary level of protection, in a targeted manner, but is also able to be disclosed when it is appropriate to do so.
As not all information obtained by my department requires protection, the definition of the information to be protected has been refined to include only certain kinds of information, such as that relating to: the security, defence and international relations of Australia; prevention, detection and investigation of offences; protection of public health and safety; or sensitive personal and commercial matters.
There must be a balance between the competing interests of transparent, open and accountable government with the necessity of protecting certain information from disclosure which would lead to identifiable harm.
The prohibition in the ABF Act on disclosure of certain kinds of information is balanced by the exceptions to this prohibition that allow for authorised disclosures. This is why the bill includes measures to remove unnecessary and cumbersome administrative overlays. Streamlining the operation of the secrecy and disclosure provisions will allow more efficient sharing of information for legitimate purposes without removing important oversight and accountability measures.
The bill provides assurances for the Australian public, business, government and foreign partners that sensitive information provided to my department will be appropriately protected, without unnecessarily restricting informed public debate. The retrospective application of the bill (back to the date the Australian Border Force Act was enacted) will provide the necessary certainty that only information which could harm the national or public interest if disclosed is to be protected, and will be regarded as ever having been protected, under the ABF Act.
This will reassure individuals who may otherwise believe they have committed an offence, in circumstances which would not have amounted to an offence under these amendments.
In conclusion, this bill will clarify the intent and refine the operation of the secrecy and disclosure provisions that govern the management of information in my portfolio. It illustrates the fine balance that must be struck in protecting sensitive information while upholding a commitment to open and accountable government. This bill underscores that commitment and will enable my department to more effectively manage information in service of our nation.
Debate adjourned.
Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (09:38): I rise to continue my remarks on the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I do not want Australia to be a developed country which sees an innocent child crippled by polio or killed by whooping cough because of nonsense spruiked by unqualified wellness bloggers. In this modern Australia, we should be promoting the health of all people. We all want healthy, well-nourished children who are protected from the wrath of disease. We should encourage reason and therefore encourage the science behind immunisation. It is far, far removed from voodoo.
It upsets me to think that there are many parents in Australia who would even consider not immunising their young children—children whose lives can be cut short by preventable diseases like meningococcal, whooping cough, rubella, hepatitis and influenza. Why should a family with a newborn child too young to be immunised play Russian roulette with their child's life when they interact with others who may or may not have been immunised simply because of parental selfishness? Pause and think what it would be like to lose a son or a daughter because their little body did not have the immunity to a deadly disease. The eradications of smallpox and polio are directly attributed to successful vaccination programs. Perhaps vaccine scepticism will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and allow previously eradicated diseases to take hold again.
At this point I would like to put on record my congratulations to Rotary International for their relentless and determined campaign to eradicate polio. Consider that: polio, the disease which saw devastating effects in children well into the last century, is soon to be eradicated by effective immunisation regimes. Rotary began their fight against polio in 1979, with a project to immunise six million children in the Philippines. As of 2016 there were reportedly only 37 cases of polio worldwide. It shows that, with their determination, their target of eradicating polio by 2018 is within sight.
There are countries who, despite today's modern age of technology and medical advancements, still suffer from the complications of preventable diseases—countries which cannot keep up with the supply of vaccines to cater for the millions of people seeking immunisation, or remote places where the efficacy of a vaccine is undermined by storage. Thanks to the ingenious mind of Professor Mark Kendall, a Ryan electorate local, and his team at the University of Queensland this may be a thing of the past. For those members who are not aware, Professor Mark Kendall and his research team have developed a nanopatch technology to deliver vaccination, including the polio vaccine, through a needle-free technology. Professor Kendall's nanopatch is a very small square of silicone containing 20,000 microscopic spikes that deliver the vaccine directly to the skin's immune cells. Imagine a small patch, applied directly to your skin, that is painless, uses a fraction of the dosage and does not require refrigeration. Today we have a padded box with perhaps six syringes in it. But now we can deliver hundreds of these patches in a box. It can be dropped, it can be left on the deck and it doesn't have to be refrigerated. It can be delivered to villages. You don't need a medical practitioner to administer it, because it's delivered through a little suction pad. You can vaccinate or immunise whole villages in half a day with non-professionals. What a breakthrough that is for so many people around the world. This revolutionary design, I believe, will redefine the course of vaccination the world over.
It is no secret that the coalition takes vaccination very seriously. In fact, I accompanied the then Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Susan Ley, when she announced in 2015 the coalition government's $26 million Immunise Australia budget package in my very healthy electorate of Ryan, a budget package that back then was commended by medical professionals for assisting busy parents to keep their children's vaccinations up to date and dispel common myths about immunisation. Recently I came across a poignant remark from Jeffrey Kluger, a senior writer for Time magazine. He said:
Vaccines save lives; fear endangers them. It's a simple message parents need to keep hearing.
There is no place for petty politics. The health of Australians needs bipartisan support. Members of this parliament should be contributors, not inhibitors, to the health of Australians young and old. It is imperative for parents to be fully informed of the medical facts before they make what could be a life-or-death decision affecting their children and the children of others.
I remind members here today that vaccinations do not stop a childhood. They are vital to ensuring an individual's health, as well as the health of those around them. The coalition is committed to positive health outcomes through preventive measures like vaccination. To date, we have seen record rates of Australians immunised against preventable diseases, the likes of which were fatal in Australia less than 50 years ago. With this booster to immunisation, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (09:43): I chose to speak on the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 today because, like every member of this place, I receive regular representations from constituents who object to their children being immunised. I wanted to take the opportunity to make a very clear statement about my views and why I have some deep concerns about others who provide succour and comfort to those who would seek to peddle dangerous misinformation about the impact of our national vaccination program.
I am pleased to say that the group of objectors who approached me—and, I am sure, every other member of this place—is very, very small. Perhaps their concerns are heartfelt, but they are misinformed. To be clear, we do know that there are a very small number of people, a very small number of children, who are unable, because of their own medical complications, to safely receive an immunisation. This legislation and other pieces of legislation on this matter deal with those issues. But I would like to set out in a very clear and concise way why I believe it behoves every member of this place to support with full voice our national immunisation program.
Australia has a very long and proud history of vaccination and public health, stretching back to 1804, when the first smallpox vaccination was administered in an Australian colony. It is hard for us to imagine today a time when childhood deaths from disease—including measles, diphtheria and polio—were common. But I suspect most of us in this place will have a family member who can remember such a time. There are still two million to three million childhood deaths each year worldwide from vaccine-preventable diseases. We have made great progress but, like all progress, it is reversible.
We made great steps in Australia with the creation of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. CSL was established in 1916 to ensure that Australia could produce its own vaccines in the period of the Great War. Supplies of vaccines that we were dependent upon had been interrupted and there was great concern that the Australian health system was going to be at risk if we did not have the capacity to produce our own vaccines. It was the flu pandemic of 1918-19 that created the real impetus and the public support to turbocharge our vaccine program. Estimates vary, but somewhere between 25 per cent of the world population was infected with the Spanish flu. The death toll was estimated to be somewhere between 50 million and 100 million people internationally. In Australia, two million were infected, and somewhere between 12,500 and 15,000 Australians died. Quarantines were set up in towns throughout Australia; our hospital system was quite simply overwhelmed. A vaccination program and popular support for the vaccination program grew out of this national crisis.
It is quite true that tens of thousands of deaths of Australian children have been prevented during the 20th century because of our national vaccination program. We can look at a lot of common diseases. Take pertussis or whooping cough; there are regular outbreaks every two to three years of whooping cough. When vaccinations were introduced in 1940, notifications and deaths from whooping cough fell dramatically. Before the vaccination program was introduced, in the 10 years between 1936 and 1945, there were 1,700 deaths from whooping cough; 1,700 young children who lost their lives because of whooping cough. But, because of the vaccination program, less than one per year has died, on average, over the last 20 years.
But this is an area where there is no room for complacency, because we know, because of the reduction in herd immunity—in part—that notified rates of whooping cough are increasing in Australia despite high infant immunisation rates. From 2002 to 2008, there were between 5,000 and 10,000 notifications annually. Compare that with 30,000 per annum between 2009 and 2011. It just goes to highlight the point I am making; this is an area where we cannot be complacent.
In the area of polio, most Australians will have a family member who, if they are still alive today, is suffering from postpolio syndrome. Polio epidemics caused more than 1,000 deaths in Australia between 1946 and 1955. If you didn't die—if you survived—quite often you were left with life-crippling disabilities. That included some children who were ventilator dependent for the rest of their lives. Since the mid-1960s there have only been four deaths from polio in Australia, and there have been no notified cases of wild-type polio for more than 30 years. In fact, in the year 2000 Australia was declared polio free. In fact, Australia has been a very active participant in a worldwide campaign to eradicate polio. We joined up with the target of eradicating polio by 2018. We are well on track to reach this target, but we have to ensure that we do our own job in our own backyard by keeping herd immunity high.
In the area of measles, every two to three years there was an outbreak of measles. If you are a child of my generation, you probably caught measles and were confined to bed for a couple of weeks. Complications associated with measles often led, tragically, to a young child losing their life. In the 1980s and 1990s, measles outbreaks occurred again, intermittently, because the vaccine uptake—that is, people having their children vaccinated for measles infections—dropped again. That is another example where the introduction of a vaccine program has all but eradicated a disease, but, when we drop our guard and herd immunity drops, we see the rates jumping up again.
We could go through the examples of all the diseases which are a part of our national vaccine program and tell a similar story: deaths in the thousands in the early years of the last century, down to negligible levels today—a result of our national vaccine program. So I argue that the No Jab, No Pay policy is sound. The No Jab, No Play policy is also sound. In this country, it's not illegal to refuse vaccination, but it is reckless.
I have had people come to me and argue that they are being discriminated against, that they are being penalised and that they are having certain government benefits or access to certain services refused to them because they are exercising their free choice. They say they are being discriminated against because of that. Well, I simply make the point that benefits, like family tax benefit payments, don't fall from the sky. They're the result of a collective effort of Australians paying their taxes, which provide the revenue for these payments. Quite simply, you can't complain about not getting a collective benefit from the Australian people if you're unwilling to take a collective responsibility to the health and welfare of your fellow Australians, and that's what the national vaccine program is all about. It's about taking a collective responsibility to ensure the collective health and welfare of the Australian population. You cannot complain about the denial of a collective benefit if you are unwilling to participate in a collective responsibility.
We are rightly proud of our health system in Australia. We rightly compare ourselves to countries that don't have the benefits that we provide to our citizens. The national vaccination program is a part of it, and it is a responsibility of every member of this House and the other place to take every opportunity that is available to us to point out to the ill-informed objectors that not only are they wrong but using the platform available to them in this place to perpetuate those reckless mistruths is very, very dangerous, indeed. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (09:55): I declare that the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:55): Mr Speaker, thank you for being in the chair during this debate, and—I am not sure if I'll get him for the whole of the speech—I thank the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for being at the table at this point as well. The concept of Australian citizenship is effectively how we define what it is to be Australian. There's lots of legislation that will go back and forth in this parliament where people will have strong and passionate views, and a lot of those issues will be relevant to what sort of country we are. But it's rare that we have a debate that is about quite directly defining what it is to be Australian. The changes that the government is proposing do very much change the definition of what it is to be Australian and change the definition of what sort of country we will be.
I was the shadow minister in this portfolio when the Howard government were in place and they made changes to citizenship. When they did, we were able to support the changes that they made. The changes that are in front of us now are of an altogether different order. The changes that are in front of us now represent a fundamental change in the sort of community Australia will be. People tried to make these points to the government when the government first released its discussion paper, and people made submissions to the government, but the government decided to keep those submissions secret. The government decided that what the Australian people had said in response to its ideas should not be allowed to be known, and so the government then introduced legislation.
Labor, during this whole process, played a responsible role. We said: 'The concept of more people speaking English—if that's something that the government's got a way of doing—may well be a good thing. Let's have a look at the legislation when it comes.' We reserved our judgement. During that time of reserving our judgement, the minister kept taunting, thinking, 'Maybe there's going to be some sort of division within the Labor Party on this issue.' Once we saw the legislation, once this government put these changes in writing, Labor were able—within a few days, at our next caucus meeting—to resolve unanimously that we will oppose these changes. There are a whole series of changes in the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. Some of them may well turn out to be more routine; some of them may well turn out to be reasonable, and the whole thing will be referred to a Senate inquiry. But there are two changes here that, in the way they are being implemented, are fundamentally unfair and change the character of the country.
I have to say: they are not the issues that the government ran on when they first made the announcement. When they first made the announcement, the argument from the government was to say that the big shift they were making was that they were going to start introducing all these values questions. Then they put questions out there and provided them to the papers. Of course, all of those questions were already available under the current legislation, and the government of the day can change those questions whenever it wants without coming back to the parliament. So that's not going to be the issue that's before the parliament. But the parliament will have to decide whether or not a large number of potential citizens will be here for more than a decade before they are ever asked to pledge allegiance to Australia and will be here for more than a decade before Australia ever says to them, 'You are welcome here.'
And that's the first of the changes I want to talk about: the delay. Labor is opposing this bill because of two key elements: the delay and the English language test. On the delay: the government puts it forward by saying, 'Look, we're just changing it from one year to four years.' Most people, when they hear that think, 'Well, waiting four years doesn't sound completely unreasonable.' What the government doesn't say is that there is already a four-year wait. There is already a requirement to wait four years before you apply for citizenship. That's because it takes into account the real-life experience that happens for a very large number of people who end up becoming citizens of this country—they arrive on their first visa as a temporary visa. There is a very large number of people who want to apply for permanent residency, but are only eligible at first for a temporary visa and gradually find a pathway to permanence.
Now, the argument from the government about why they wait for four years is, they say, 'Well, that's a reasonable length of time for the country to get to know the person and for the person to get to know the country.' But that is already delivered; that's already there. And because so many people arrive on a temporary visa first, what this change means is that if you end up, as many people do, on one or two temporary work visas or one or two temporary student visas, or a mixture of both, you will have been here, easily, for eight years before you get your first year of permanent residence. But instead of being able to apply for citizenship at that point, the response from the government is that you have to wait until you have been here for more than a decade in the real-life experience.
Now, what does that mean from the perspective of the country? It means there is a conscious decision from this government to delay people pledging allegiance to Australia when it has already been decided they will permanently be here. There is a deliberate decision by this government to tell somebody who we have said will be here permanently, that they are not yet fully welcome for a longer period of time. I don't, for the life of me, see how that is in the interests of the individual or in the interests of the country, to increase the number of people living here who do not pledge allegiance to Australia.
I can't see how that's clever. I can't see how that's good for the national security arguments that the government tries to appropriate in this debate. How does it make sense to have a situation where somebody will have to wait for that length of time, living here in Australia the whole way through—us knowing them and us having decided they are here permanently—but then adding a further delay? And of course we have all heard the cases of people who were ready to apply and have now been told, 'No, you might have thought you were eligible, but the government has decided to implement this law before it has passed the parliament and delay your citizenship anyway.'
I understand that we do that with tax law all the time because with tax law, if you are going to change it and you do not make the change immediately, the danger is that people will reorganise their tax affairs to be able to avoid the taxation. But what was the risk here when the government decided that this would be retrospective? The risk was that people who were eligible for Australian citizenship might apply. People who were eligible and legally able to become Australian citizens might apply, and that was the risk that has caused this government to implement, without any legislative authority, the law that is now before us—the bill that is now before us. But the delay only gets us part of the way, because that is a temporary change in terms of the impact that it has on people's lives. It is something that is not in Australia's interest and not in their interests, but eventually they get to become citizens.
The change to the English language test is fundamental. When I have spoken at community forums I have had people interject, saying that it sounds like a dictation test—and we all know what they are referring to when they make that reference. The change to the English language test is huge. The minister, in his speech and in his interviews, has said, 'Well, we're requiring a competent level of English.' I think most people, if they hear that, think, 'Well, yeah, that sounds reasonable; yeah, your English should be competent.' And most people would believe their own levels of English are competent. But of course under this bill, 'competent English' has a very specific and precise legal meaning. It refers to level 6 of the IELTS test—the level of English required for an overseas student to get into university. Some universities have even lower levels. That's the level of English that is being required. It is an extraordinary act of snobbery for this government to claim Australia only wants you if you are at university level. That does not just send a message to potential immigrants, that does not just send a message to potential citizens but it sends a message to a whole lot of people who were born here, who have lived in Australia their whole lives, who will never reach university-level English, that this government reckons they are second-class. University-level English: why would a normal Australian come up with that? Well, they would not, but an elitist snobbish government has brought that to the parliament.
Those opposite already effectively have an English language test because the test which the Howard government put in place, which the government of the day can update the questions on whenever they want, is a test in English. So if you cannot complete a test in English, you do not get to become a citizen. But the level of English required at the moment is conversational English, and most people, myself included, view that as reasonable. To have to have conversational-level English is good for the country and good for the citizen. It means that individual will be able to much more easily engage when they are shopping, engage when they are dealing with government services and engage when they need to report something. Conversational-level English is a completely reasonable requirement. But you do not need to change the law for that because that has been there since the days of the Howard government.
The IELTS test is not a conversational-level English test. It is a test that looks at speaking, listening, comprehension, writing—you need to be able to write an essay. How many times does the Prime Minister try to associate himself with the Snowy Mountains Scheme without ever once acknowledging that, at the same time, he has got a law in this parliament that would mean a large number of the people who built that scheme would never have been accepted as Australian citizens? How many members of this parliament have parents who would not reach university-level English and yet are currently contemplating voting for legislation that would mean their own parents would not have been able to become Australian citizens?
Once you set the English language test at a level that some people will never meet, you guarantee something we have not previously seen in Australia for generations because, at the moment, everybody who is a permanent resident is in some way on a pathway to citizenship. But once you set it at a level that some people, with the best efforts and the best of intentions, will never be able to reach, you establish a new underclass of people in this country, who will go through their entire working life in Australia without ever being told they belong, without ever being able to pledge allegiance to this country, when the country has said 'You should be here as a permanent resident, but we are going to let you go through your entire working life without you ever saying you pledge to this country and without us ever saying you belong.'
Lots of countries in the world do have a permanent underclass of noncitizens. We do not and we should not. And the only thing that is standing between that change and how Australia works now is this bill. Some people say, 'Well, university-level English, is it that hard?' I have read this about five times. I am better at it now than I was at first—I bumbled this on TV a few times. Let me read to you an example of the IELTS test. It is based in Cambridge University. You can go online and find different sample tests. They are all to this level of complexity.
Calisthenics enters the historical record at around 480 B.C., with Herodotus’ account of the Battle of Thermopylae. Herodotus reported that, prior to the battle, the god-king Xerxes sent a scout party to spy on his Spartan enemies. The scouts informed Xerxes that the Spartans, under the leadership of King Leonidas, were practicing some kind of bizarre, synchronised movements akin to a tribal dance … It turns out their tribal dance was not a superstitious ritual but a form of calisthenics by which they were building awe-inspiring physical strength and endurance.
What on earth does that have to do with being a good Australian? What on earth does that have to do with whether or not you should be able to pledge allegiance to this country?
Who can honestly argue that a test like that should be a requirement for whether or not you pledge allegiance to Australia? That is an act of snobbery—nothing more, nothing less. And when I first raised university-level English, the minister came back and said, 'Oh: no, no, no! Tony Burke is wrong, because there's a university stream of the IELTS and there's a general stream of the IELTS and we'd use the general stream.' The one I just read from is from the general stream. That's the easier one; that's the easier passage. But the difference between the university stream and the general stream isn't the complexity of the testing when you get to the final mark, it's the language that's used. So the university stream would be more likely to use language that you'd find at university and the general stream uses language like that which I have just read to the House. That's the difference between the two. But the level of proficiency represented by the IELTS 6 is exactly the same. The level of proficiency is still the university level of proficiency.
If that were the standard alone, it would be pretty bad, but there is something else that has been snuck in, which you can find in the explanatory memorandum and which I have to say is straight-out offensive. Not every potential citizen is going to have to pass that test. Not everybody is going to have to reach university-level English. If you are applying for citizenship and you are a passport holder of certain countries, the minister has flagged that you will be okay. There are many countries in the world, something like 50, that have English as one of their official languages. But guess which the five countries are that they have flagged in the explanatory memorandum, that if you are a passport holder of one of those countries you won't have to pass the English test? New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Ireland and the UK. It just so happens that of all the countries in the world that have English as one of their official languages, Singapore doesn't make the cut and India doesn't make the cut. But the five countries deemed as a majority population that is white are the five countries listed in the explanatory memorandum from where you won't have to pass the English language test.
I do not know how on earth members of parliament on that side who are here representing seats representing multicultural communities—where they are here as the representatives of people in their local area—could vote for that. How on earth could the minister? I have arguments with the minister at different times, but I've got to say that I didn't think he was capable of this one! What possesses someone to say, 'You need university-level English unless you come from one of the five white countries where English is an official language'? That is what is in front of us. That is what is in front of the parliament.
I met a couple at one of the community meetings in Perth and he said to me, 'I was a highly sought-after skilled migrant.' He is not a citizen yet. He said to me: 'Canada wanted me and Australia wanted me. I chose here, and I love it here. But what I now realise that I did not realise when I was coming here is that because of the English language test I will get to be a citizen and my wife won't.' He said, 'If I'd known there was going to be different treatment of us as a couple—it breaks my heart to say it—but I would have chosen Canada.' What the government is doing here will divide which family members get to become Australians and which don't. It will divide people based not on their proficiency of English in the first instance but on what country they came from.
I'm not going to pretend for a minute, and I do not believe for a minute, that every member opposite believes in this sort of stuff, but I do suspect they are currently intending to vote for it. This is much more offensive than what we were dealing with with 18C and racial hate speech, and that was pretty offensive. That was arguing whether or not people in the street, in the public square, would be allowed to say something racist. This is about whether we entrench those views in the law of Australia. This is of another order altogether.
Now, I should acknowledge the arguments that the government have put. They put two arguments. They've said this is about national security and this is about integration. I want to deal with each of those two in turn. In the first instance: national security legislation, when it comes to this parliament, is dealt with very seriously. It is referred to the intelligence committee, and we do everything we can to provide bipartisan support. So when I had my briefing from the department—normally I wouldn't refer to briefings from the department because I view that confidentiality very seriously, but the minister then went and started talking about my briefing from the department and so I really think it's my obligation to open that up—I asked, 'Was this a recommendation from ASIO?' No. 'Was this is a recommendation from the Australian Federal Police?' No. 'Was this a recommendation from any of our defence or security agencies?' No. I said, 'Well, where did it come from?' It's a recommendation from a report by two members of the Liberal Party: Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells and Philip Ruddock. National security advice does not come from them. But, moreover, how can it be a national security issue if everybody applying for citizenship is already here and already a permanent resident? If they are a security problem, what are they doing here? This is not about national security, and national security issues—which are important, which are serious, and there are real threats—should not be thrown around with a debate that is irrelevant to it.
The government has also argued it's about integration. Well, let's look at this in two ways. First of all, integration is important. I think 'assimilation' is a dreadful word; 'integration' is a good one. Assimilation is about people losing their identity. Integration is about people keeping their identity, who they are, and it's weaving together the fabric of a community and a nation. That's integration. Integration is a good thing. This is the opposite of integration. Integration is not when you establish a permanent underclass of noncitizens. Integration is when you bring people together, not divide them. And there is a provision with integration, not often spoken about, where the government wants to claim, 'Oh well, but setting a high standard gets people to work harder to become citizens, to keep trying to get to that threshold.' If that was the case, why is it that, buried in this legislation, if you fail the test three times you're not even allowed to apply for another two years? How is that about integration?
What's in front of the parliament in this bill is a huge and fundamental change. It is not lost on members of the community how significant it is. On many issues, from time to time, we launch online petitions to see if there's much take-up, to see what sort of interest there is from the community. I started the online petition once Labor had fallen into position on this. It hasn't been that long, it's been a bit over a month, but in that time we've had 27,000 people sign the petition to make clear that they do not want the change—there are more folders, but you won't be able to see me; I will disappear, buried beneath the folders.
There is a huge community outcry, including from people who when they first heard the government talk about this thought it might probably be OK, but what people have started to realise is the government is changing expectations in ways that mean they wouldn't have got to be Australians, that mean their neighbours who are good citizens wouldn't be Australians, that mean their parents wouldn't have been welcomed here. That is a huge change. And also they realise now that it cannot possibly be good for integration or good for national security to have a permanent group of people for their whole working lives being told actively by the government that they don't belong.
One of the things you get to do when you are minister for citizenship is put forward a message that is read at every citizenship ceremony. The character of those messages always reflects the minister of the day. I have never seen a dreadful one. The one from the current minister has some good moments in it. There was a line that I had in my very brief time as minister for citizenship that was taken away immediately at the change of government, and I think it's significant to point to it now because, if that line had been kept in, I don't know how anyone could have contemplated the legislation that is before us now. It was shorter than most citizenship messages. It just said: 'In a few moments time Australia becomes a better nation. Your decision to make the citizenship pledge sees you take on the privileges and responsibilities of Australian citizenship. From that moment your journey and heritage will become part of our shared Australian story. Australia welcomes you as a full member of one of the most diverse nations on earth, where our citizenship is a bond which unites us all. Australia welcomes you and the talents, diversity and vitality that you bring to Australia. Today your new nation says to you, "Welcome home."' The words 'welcome home' disappeared the moment there was a change of government, and we have legislation before us now that says to a whole lot of people, 'You're not welcome and it's not home.'
If you do that on the basis of a security assessment, we are there with you, but, if you do it on the basis of a snobbish attitude to university levels of English, we will fight you. You do it on the basis of having exemptions for people from particular nations that you have decided are OK? We will fight you. You do it in a way where people—good people who had already decided to be here permanently—were excited, looking forward to putting their citizenship application in and then discovered in the blink of an eye that they had been told, 'No, you're not welcome for another three years'? We will fight you. You bring in legislation that has nothing to do with national security and claims that it does? We will fight you every step of the way. You bring in legislation claiming that something is about integration when it delivers the exact opposite of integration by establishing a permanent underclass of noncitizens? We will fight the government every step of the way on this.
We have seen moments of bravery from members of the backbench opposite. We have seen moments of bravery on an issue that the House has been discussing and has been in the media this week. We saw moments of bravery last year with respect to 18C and racial hate speech. I hope we can get some bravery from those opposite who are willing to say they are proud of modern multicultural Australia and they will not let this minister wreck it. I want to see some bravery from those opposite who will say that conversational-level English matters and that university-level English is ridiculous, who will say that we should be a nation where, if someone has been decided that they will be a good Australian and we've decided by making them permanent residents that they will be a good Australian, we will say to them, 'Welcome home.'
It's not often that the parliament actually defines what it is to be an Australian, but we're about to do that, and for many members of parliament it might not be the most high-profile vote they have, but it will be one of the most significant. I urge members of parliament to oppose the bill.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (10:24): Well, the member for Watson has certainly put on some theatre, full of symbolism and absolutely lacking substance. Clearly the member himself must not have spent any time in a foreign market, struggling to catch a bus or a train, look up a timetable or find a doctor. I have. I've spent years doing just that in non-English-speaking countries where there is not one English sign.
The English proficiency requirements outlaid in the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 have two streams: a study stream and a general stream. So, when the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Watson carry on about there being a need for university-level proficiency, that is a dishonesty. It is wrong. And the very people that they purport to represent are the ones in whose hearts they are driving fear.
We are an open political economy in Australia. We welcome people to this country, and what we do not need is the Labor Party misrepresenting responsible legislation, driving fear into those people who we should be welcoming here to Australia. It is their words to suggest university-level proficiency. There is no such thing required, which makes one wonder about the increasing importance of Australians deciding whether the blind negativity, the opposition for opposition's sake that comes from Labor on virtually every government bill, is simply wilful, destructive obstructionism or whether it comes from an entrenched hypocrisy that has become the hallmark of today's Labor Party. Australians should consider and make a decision on that question as they listen to the member for Watson and Labor debate bills in this parliament in the lead-up to the next election, because, if they do, they will perceive the extent to which the Australian Labor Party is not only bereft of solutions but, more importantly, totally unworthy of their support. The Australian Labor Party, once a great and worthy part of our polity, has shown repeatedly that its aim is to make this country ungovernable, because it perceives in that behaviour the creation of a disenchantment that will grease its way back into office. This is a despicable approach to governance in this country and is on display yet again in Labor's response to the bill we're debating today to strengthen the Australian citizenship legislation by amending it.
All elements of this bill have broad support outside the soft left that now dominates Labor and the hard left which has otherwise deserted the Labor Party for the Greens and which Labor now desperately wants to claw back by relentlessly sliding further and further to the left. This bill establishes a considerable yet totally reasonable English language test for would-be Australian citizens, a test closely in line with similar tests in countries like the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, using precisely the same template, the International English Language Testing System. In all the criticisms from the member for Watson, he was not able to suggest any other template. There was no proposal—just blind criticism.
The bill extends the amount of time new arrivals must legally reside in this country before they can apply for citizenship from one year to four. It requires applicants to sign an Australian values statement. It requires that applicants demonstrate an ability to integrate into the Australian community, including by behaving in a manner consistent with Australian values, reflected in the Australian values statement. It requires applicants to pledge their allegiance to Australia, their fellow Australians, and Australian values, and allows the minister to determine eligibility criteria for sitting the citizenship test, which may consider the fact that a person has previously failed the test or did not comply with one or more of the rules related to the test, or if he or she cheated. It also enables the minister, in certain circumstances, to overrule decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an extension of his authority made necessary by the fact that the tribunal has determined people to be of good character even after they have been convicted of child sexual offences, manslaughter, people smuggling and domestic violence—extraordinary, extraordinary decisions!
Labor opposes all of these steps, despite the fact that submissions to the 2015 inquiry into the citizenship test undertaken by this government showed strong community support for this sort of response. Why, therefore, is Labor once again just opposing, opposing, opposing? It is increasingly obvious that the answer is: because of the almost total capitulation of the Australian Labor Party to the socialist left. For example, when the proposal for a more realistic language test was introduced and a longer period before an immigrant could seek Australian citizenship was proposed, back in April, the opposition leader actually supported the thrust of it. He said this:
I think it is reasonable to look for English language proficiency, and I think that it's reasonable to have some period of time … before you become an Australian citizen.
That was just in April. Now he has backflipped—backflipped because he has outraged the socialist left of his own party and they have brought him very meekly back into line.
The member for Watson, from whom we just heard, a former minister for immigration and border protection, no less, and a card-carrying leftie, too, of course, has said in the past: 'We need stricter English language requirements.' That was the member for Watson in 2006. In the same year, which was when the Howard government was considering toughening up some of the citizenship requirements, he said that nobody who was not prepared to sign a declaration to respect our laws and our way of life should be allowed into the country. John Howard at the time promoted the importance of English for new immigrants, and the member for Watson acknowledged that John Howard was 'spot on'—spot-on in 2006, but not today, apparently. It seems that these leopards of Watson and Maribyrnong have changed their spots, yet again, because that is what has been ordered by the ringmasters of Labor's caucus circus, the socialist left, and so to the left they creep.
As Troy Bramston, the former Labor insider and now, often, commentator on the ALP, recently observed, the left is now running the Labor Party, both organisationally and in this parliament, because Labor members are at the beck and call of the organisation and the left now dominates. So the measures that the members for Maribyrnong and Watson so strongly supported just a few years ago are now, to use their word, 'snobbery,' because that's the word they've been instructed to use.
The Labor Party's failure to comprehend or honestly represent the way the English test works is irresponsible. Let me explain it to them, yet again, in simple terms. There are two distinctly separate strains of the testing system. That shouldn't be hard to comprehend. There is a separate testing system for those applicants who wish to study here in Australia, and then another, separate strain for the wider immigration program. So there is one for an academic stream and one for general applicants. The levels of proficiency required under these two streams are different and fit for purpose. There are degrees of capability, registered by the testing authorities on a scale of 1 to 9. The proposed English test does indeed require proficiency to level 6 for both tests, but they are different sets of tests themselves. In other words, the general stream test is far less onerous. This is where the Labor Party is being irresponsible and creating fear among the very people who are trying to master the English language enough to pass level 6—not level 9, level 6. Labor simply says that because we want would-be citizens to achieve level 6 we are measuring them against university-level regimes. That's not what is being proposed. That is why we have that second general stream.
The second stream does require at least a basic understanding of the language. A person should have an ability to understand it when they are spoken to; an ability to be orally responsive to other people in a way that is understandable to the listener, and if there are some errors or mispronunciations, et cetera, that may make understanding them a bit difficult; and an ability to write it at a basic level. There is no problem with people struggling with a language, including English, but it's in their vested interest for them to integrate, for their families to be part of our society and for them to have a degree of proficiency that allows that to happen. An ability to read, for example, encompasses such things as reading a train or bus timetable to be able to get around, or reading a tabloid newspaper or popular magazine to help develop an understanding of how Australians tick. It is nothing outrageous or unreasonable. What is required is simply and sensibly a clear indication at a person has enough proficiency in the language to get by in a society where the principle language used both as a spoken and written form of communication is in fact—wait for it—English.
Another equally spurious, equally hypocritical position being adopted by the Labor Party in relation to this bill is a demand for a longer period of residency before citizenship. They wish to make that shorter. Again, you just have to consider what the members for Maribyrnong and Watson—the member for Watson especially, as the principle Labor spokesperson in this area—have said in the past. Once again, there are blatant contradictions. Perhaps they used to think for themselves before surrendering to the tight leash from the left. Have these multiple backflips meant the Labor Party has genuinely lost its way and it wishes to totally rebrand as a pinko socialist left party?
To the members for Watson and Maribyrnong, to the future members who are going to be standing in this House and to the Labor speakers who will speak after me, I ask a few questions. If they do not wish for new Australian citizens to speak proficient English, what language do they wish for them to speak? If the Labor Party does not want new citizens to sign up to Australian values, what other country's values do they wish new citizens to sign up to? If the Labor Party does not want new citizens to pledge allegiance to the nation of Australia, then what nation do they wish allegiance to be pledged to?
Australia is bound by a common set of values and we need to ensure that those values are upheld and respected, just as we must ensure the rule of law. What is being proposed in this bill strengthens the citizenship test for Australia and, therefore, strengthens the very values that bind us as a nation. If the Labor Party wishes to keep sliding to the left and reject it, then it only serves to weaken the country and the very people they purport to represent.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:39): That has to be one of the most strange, weird and odd speeches I have heard in nearly 10 years in this place!
I will say from the outset that we won't support the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. We referred it to a Senate committee for inquiry, which will report in September. If you were listening, the Turnbull government would have you believe that they are strengthening Australian values. They are actually undermining them and preventing individuals and families who wish to pledge allegiance to this country from becoming Australian citizens.
The government has failed to provide any coherent or cogent case as to why the proposed amendments are necessary. They have attempted to silence those individuals, organisations, peak bodies, businesses and even foreign embassies who made submissions in relation to the discussion paper on Australian citizenship. They refused to release or to make public those submissions. The only conclusion is that they do not want the public to know what was being submitted. We know that the Refugee Council of Australia has said in relation to this particular matter:
The inclusive nature of Australian citizenship is a crucial element in the success of our multicultural society.
Like many other Australians, I have been deeply concerned by the chorus of voices on the other side who have lined up to offer their answers to the question: what makes a good Australian? This is as if somehow they are some authority on the topic—as if, somehow, on that side of the chamber they are patriots and on this side of the chamber we are not. That is just nonsense, the stuff we heard from the member for Fairfax.
By this bill, the government wants to make people wait even longer before they are eligible to apply for citizenship. The Turnbull government has already become known to go slow with respect to processing of visa and citizenship applications. They have ripped away resources and savaged staff from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection—frontline staff. We know that from the budget papers of the last couple of years. Now those time frames are only going to grow longer because of this particular bill.
People who migrate to Australia, regardless of where they come from, have already been permanent residents for 12 months before they become Australian citizens. Further, they have to live for a total of four years in Australia on some form of visa before even being able to apply for citizenship. This means that they have already been living here for four years—often already speaking English in the case of people who have come here, or learning English. We provide English language training of up to 510 hours and are increasing that to a thousand hours, often in community hubs or in circumstances being provided by those authorities who provide English language training. But that's simply not sufficient for this government. Instead, they have brought forward legislation which says that anyone who wishes to become an Australian citizen needs to demonstrate a minimum period of four years permanent residence immediately before making an application.
Now, they're seeking to do this by amendments to the Migration Act and the Citizenship Act. The government has failed to explain why it believes delaying someone's pledge of allegiance to Australia any further could be considered to strengthen our citizenship laws. People who wish to declare their affinity with and love for this country will be forced to wait even longer before they can do so. It's really a slap in the face to our history as a migrant nation and to those migrants who built their lives here, received Australian citizenship and enriched our communities. It's not beneficial to impose further hurdles, which will further isolate migrant communities and refugees in this country.
In a submission to the Senate inquiry, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, FECCA, stated:
Permanent residents should be encouraged to seek citizenship as soon as practically possible to foster a sense of inclusion and belonging and to encourage integration.
FECCA continued by saying that 'anything which delays or deters should be resisted'. Labor has adopted that principle.
Concern has also been expressed by the Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma for those on safe haven enterprise visas—SHEVs. Under the government's proposed amendments, those in Australia on SHEVs would have to be in Australia for a period of five years and permanent residents for a minimum period of four years, a total of nine years before even being eligible for citizenship.
The Turnbull government has brought forward this legislation, which will impede those people who wish to have a sense of belonging and who wish to be connected to this country. Of course, it goes without saying that all Australians, whether they were born here in this country or migrated here, should abide by Australian laws. Labor believes that; I dare say that there would not be a person in this chamber who doesn't believe that. The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 already allows the government to put forward any citizenship questions about Australia, including what Australian values are, under section 23A, which states:
The Minister must, by written determination, approve a test for the purposes of subsection 21(2A) (about general eligibility for citizenship).
Amendments such as in paragraph 21(2)(f), that insert references to Australian values, have been inserted by the Turnbull government as a distraction from other unfair and poorly considered measures in the bill, of which there are so many. It should be noted that the current citizenship test is already in English and that these proposed changes by the government are an additional test being added to the list of desired requirements. We believe on this side of the chamber that being an Australian citizen should be about your values and commitment to this country and not whether a person can speak a university level of English, and that's exactly what the government proposes.
New paragraph 21(9)(a) empowers the immigration minister to determine the circumstances in which a person has competent English. It says of the English requirement that examination is administered by a particular entity and the person achieves a particular score. First the government wants to make migrants and refugees wait longer to become Australian citizens, and then they are saying that you have to achieve a university level of English to become an Australian citizen. The Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma stated in their submission to the Senate inquiry:
The Government’s proposed changes to the assessment of English proficiency has not been accompanied by a commitment to provide resources to assist people to prepare for the new test.
Labor believes in helping migrants to obtain English language skills, because having conversational English allows those people who come to Australia to benefit themselves and other members of the Australian community to get jobs and integrate into society. There is no denying it helps families participate in their communities, reduces potential vulnerabilities and allows people become part of Australian life.
I have met refugees and I have had the privilege of sitting in on English language classes—support they are offered when they first come to Australia. Many of those support services were introduced by the previous Labor government. In those classes I learnt that success is not about teaching grammar proficiency. Real success is about feeling included; it is about the self-worth of what it means to be a student. For some individuals, this was the first time in their lives they had that experience. There is also the challenge of learning something new. I heard from mothers who took pride in being able to help their children with schoolwork, and fill in forms their kids brought home from school. And fathers who had pride in securing their first job in Australia. These tasks did not require a university level of English; it needed guts, determination and the help of a supportive teacher. It is those attributes we should be fostering, not a public debate about the use of a semicolon brought on by the Prime Minister.
As shadow minister for immigration and border protection, I have been fortunate to meet many families and individuals who have moved to Australia and who now call this country home. Many permanent residents dream and aspire to become Australian citizens so they can fully pledge their commitment to this wonderful country of ours and its shared values. It would be a disgrace if the actions of the Turnbull government prevented people who have worked so hard to make this country their home from becoming Australian citizens just because they do not have university-level English.
The government has attempted to deny the requirements are university-level English. Dr David Ingram, of Griffith University, was one of the original developers of the IELTS test in June 2015. He said that this test was 'specifically designed to assess the English proficiency of international students seeking enrolment in English speaking universities'. Although Australia is a nation built on migration, the Prime Minister and the immigration minister want to impose on new migrants an English language requirement that many of those born in this country would not have been able to pass themselves. I wonder how many members of the Liberal and National Party caucus rooms—because the previous speaker, the member for Fairfax, was talking about caucus rooms and caucuses—could pass the government's proposed English language test. Has the immigration minister trialled the test in his own caucus? I note that the immigration minister issued a press release on 20 July using the word 'baldly' in a sentence, rather than 'boldly', which I assume was the correct word he intended to use. The immigration minister also incorrectly used the word 'mislead' instead of 'misled' in the same release. How would the Deputy Prime Minister, for example, fare in this English language test, if you heard him at question time? A university-level English requirement is an absurd proposition by the Turnbull government. It just shows that, if they'd had their way, those who wouldn't satisfy this requirement wouldn't be in this country.
We're acutely aware of the repercussions of tying a particular high level of English language requirement to our citizenship process. If this bill is successful, it will set a course for a new group of permanent residents to be established who will never be eligible to become Australian citizens. They are permanent residents who work hard to make a life for themselves, permanent residents who enrich our communities and contribute to our society, permanent residents who are our friends, our colleagues and our neighbours, all of whom we can chat with and share stories with.
But, under this government, making permanent residents wait longer isn't enough. The government wants to force a situation in which these migrants will never be invited to become Australian citizens and will never be invited to pledge allegiance to Australia. This isn't an exaggeration. The Refugee Council of Australia agrees with this sentiment. It said:
For many, achieving an academic level of English is impossible, effectively denying them citizenship no matter how much they contribute to Australian life or however long they live here.
The government thinks conversational English isn't enough for those who wish to become Australian citizens. It thinks university-level English is sufficient to become an Australian citizen.
FECCA stressed their concern in regard to this bill, saying:
FECCA believes that this Bill will create a permanent underclass of Australian residents …
How is creating a permanent underclass good for this country? How is it good for Australian society to fail to recognise the past contribution of migrants and refugees when assessing their future as citizens of this country? This government, in my view, under this bill, is attempting to divide this country. It's sad. The Prime Minister himself has said of his government's English language requirements, 'We're doing people a favour by making it a requirement.' I will be the first to say to the Prime Minister that I don't want him to be doing this favour for me or for anyone else that I know.
Today we are faced with a choice about what type of nation we choose to be, and that's why Labor's opposing this bill. The government claims it's about national security. If you heard the previous speaker, he alluded to it. We're committed to keeping Australia safe and keeping all Australians safe as well. We've consistently demonstrated a bipartisan approach with respect to national security. We recognise that the national security legislation comes on the advice of national security agencies. They're our experts entrusted with the task of keeping Australians safe, regardless of the government of the day. It's because national security is bigger than politics and because the national security agencies are the best in the world that Labor listens to what they have to say.
But this legislation before the chamber did not come as a result of the advice of national security agencies. It came because of the advice of a current Liberal senator and a former Liberal member of the House of Representatives. It's a blatant example of this government prioritising politics over the national security of Australia and its people. The Prime Minister, in his desperate attempt to keep his position, is allowing this power grab by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection while attempting to placate the far right of his party.
We've seen no cogent or consistent evidence for this legislation. We've received no briefings from national security agencies as to why this is necessary, nor have there been any public statements in relation to it. Labor has not seen anything in any way offered by the government about how this would substantially benefit national security concerns. This is about fearmongering, sadly. We are concerned about where the government's going in relation to this issue. We think the government has simply got it wrong.
But there are issues being raised about the increasing power of the immigration minister, and we've raised those issues in the past. I quote the President of the Law Council of Australia, Fiona McLeod SC, who says:
This new legislation effectively allows the minister to override citizenship decisions or to render his own decisions unreviewable.
It's for these reasons that Labor has established the Senate inquiry. It is because Labor's about keeping Australians safe and about a cohesive, consistent and multicultural community. We won't stand by while the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection seizes power in a quest to be judge, jury and anything else in relation to these issues. So we await the outcome of the Senate inquiry; we oppose this legislation; and we call on the government to rethink this bill.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (10:54): I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of these important reforms that are so important to so many Australians, because Australian citizenship is a privilege. Some of us are lucky enough to be born here and acquire citizenship by birth. Some of us come to this country through migration and take the opportunity to acquire Australian citizenship.
My father is one of those who came to this country in 1951. I mentioned in this my maiden speech. He was 17. He was on his own. He had an old guitar, his possessions in a tool box and 25 pounds in his pocket. For those in the younger generation, 25 pounds is $50. It's not a lot of money. He certainly talked for many years about the importance of having money in your pocket. And that's why he worked so very hard, contributed a great deal to this country and still does today. He still works 7 days a week. He is 85 years old and works seven days a week. That's very much part of the values that he has brought to this country.
I think one of the great things about citizenship of this country is that we don't require people to neglect their heritage. We very much encourage them to reflect on their heritage and to preserve their heritage, but we also wish that they would adopt our values and the Australian way of life and contribute as Australian citizens who are born here. Regardless of whether we came here or were born in Australia, it is a privilege to call ourselves Australian citizens. We view the importance of democracy, the rule of law, the right to express ourselves and the right to free speech as parts of what it means to be an Australian and very much parts of what makes this country great. I think that every parliamentarian in this place enjoys the opportunity to go to a citizenship ceremony and see the enthusiasm that our new Australian citizens are bringing to this country, see the enthusiasm with which they embrace the notion of Australian citizenship.
These reforms that we are debating today are important because they place a priority on respect for Australian values and on demonstrating a willingness and an ability to integrate into this great country, Australia. This is about making sure that citizenship is only awarded to the right people. If we award the privilege of Australian citizenship to those who don't respect our values, institutions and the Australian way of life, we are opening ourselves to becoming a nation of division and disunity. We are very much focused on the importance of ensuring that Australian citizenship reflects Australian values.
This bill ensures that every new citizen signs an Australian values statement, but this builds on what is currently in place by requiring applicants to demonstrate they are attempting to integrate with and contribute to the Australian community in accordance with Australian values. Merely signing a form is not enough, as it does little in determining whether these individuals are really serious about their commitment to Australian values and the Australian way of life. The measure in this bill requires them to demonstrate exactly what they are doing to join our Australian family—for example, getting a job, looking for work or paying tax on the work they are doing to contribute financially to their new home. These are practical signs that the applicants for citizenship are genuinely committed to their role in Australian society.
In addition to the police checks currently conducted, the government of the day will also evaluate whether those applying to be Australian citizens have previously engaged in activities that are inconsistent with Australian values. Domestic and family violence is a scourge in this country and something we need to fight, so it would be detrimental to allow violent individuals who have a propensity to conduct themselves in such a way to gain Australian citizenship. Failing to stand for a judge in a court of law in this country would be something very inconsistent with our Australian values. Being involved in heinous or organised crime and being part of a gang are not consistent with Australian values. So it is curious that the Labor Party won't stand up and vote for amendments that will place barriers to those who would not act in the way that I think most Australians think appropriate. The good old Labor Party is pandering to the Left rather than standing up for the important institution that is Australian citizenship.
As to the former Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, the member for Watson, I was quite bemused by his contribution. I will take a moment to reflect on his contribution when he was immigration minister, presiding over the arrival of 83 boats, some 6,634 illegal maritime arrivals. That was his contribution to immigration: an immigration system that was out of control. This government fixed that. This government made sure that our borders are secure and continues to do so.
But it's important that Australians speak English. We had some promising signals sent by the member for Watson, but unfortunately that was when he was in opposition. When he was in opposition, he said, 'We need stricter English language requirements,' as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 12 September 2006. He also said, again in 2006:
Why is it that no one is asked on these forms to commit to respecting Australian values and abiding by Australian laws?
Yes, this was all from opposition. He went on, in terms of 'a declaration to respect our laws and way of life', to say:
Anyone who has a problem signing that shouldn't be allowed here.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
Mr HARTSUYKER: Yes. It's quite interesting to hear what the member for Watson said in opposition, as opposed to his pontification this morning in this very place. Then he said in response to Prime Minister Howard's focus on the importance of English, 'His focus on the need for people living in Australia to try and learn English was'—and I quote the member for Watson—'spot-on.' 'Spot-on,' he said of Prime Minister Howard's requirements. But what happened when he left the halls of opposition and went into government? He was far less supportive.
Mr McCormack: He squibbed it.
Mr HARTSUYKER: He squibbed it, absolutely squibbed it. Then there is also the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, who said, 'I think it's reasonable to look for English proficiency and reasonable to have some qualifying time period before becoming an Australian citizen.' Well, they seem to be singing from a different hymnbook today.
So I think it's appropriate that the changes that the government has made in this legislation should be supported, and it is most disappointing that we are seeing the members opposite flip-flopping on this. We had the member for Watson, when he was in opposition previously, saying how important it was to have strong English language requirements. He was saying how important it was to declare to respect our laws and way of life. That is what he was saying previously, but he seems to have changed his tune.
This is important legislation. It is legislation that should be supported by this House. It is disappointing to see the Labor Party once again pandering to the Left, failing to support what is good legislation, what is good policy, what is good practice, to ensure that Australian citizenship remains as a privilege for those who respect our Australian way of life, who are willing to integrate into this country, who respect our values and who will contribute strongly to this nation. I commend this legislation to the House.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (11:04): I rise in this place today to state my absolute disgust regarding the message that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, along with his government, is sending to our communities in relation to citizenship. The government have been persistent with their message of fairness, yet their actions tell the opposite story, as they are proving time and time again. They do not know the meaning of the word 'fair'. How can the government sit back and say that what they are proposing for Australian citizenship is in any way fair? How is it fair that my granddaughter's mother, who is a contributing member in her community, working and paying taxes, cannot become an Australian citizen for another four years?
I have been contacted by numerous and very distressed people in my electorate of Herbert, who are gravely concerned about the changes that this government intends to make to citizenship. One particular family has been living in Australia for five years and has held permanent residency for 11 months. This family were intending to apply for citizenship in July 2017, as that was when they were eligible. This family has been adhering religiously to the requirements that were outlined to them by the government when they applied for residency in 2016. They completed their medical examinations and criminal background checks accordingly, and yet on 20 April this year they were contacted to say that everything could change, even though they were already in the system. They were two months away from applying for their citizenship and, because of this government's completely heartless approach to citizenship, they now have to wait an additional three years before they can reapply. I will reiterate: they have been living in Australia for five years.
To add insult to injury, the government has proposed in its higher education reform paper that from 1 January 2018 subsidies for most Australian permanent residents and most New Zealand citizens enrolling in a Commonwealth supported place will be withdrawn, making them fee-paying students. Once again, this is impacting on this family. Their son hopes to enrol in university in 2018. He will now have his access to the CSP removed; he will be classed as an international student and pay three times the average university fee rate than he would have paid under the current rules. This young man came to Australia at the age of 12. This is simply not fair to this family or the many other families who may be affected in the same situation around the country. This government must consider the impacts when making such decisions, and they must allow appropriate time for adjustment.
I expected to speak on this amendment during Refugee Week. Refugee Week recognises people who have fled violence and war to seek a safer place to live and now call Australia home. During Refugee Week, it is important that we reflect on the contributions that refugees genuinely make in our communities. Migrants and refugees have played a significant role in our communities. This is particularly the case in my region, where migrants from the South Sea islands, the Kanakas as they were known, were sugar slaves because they were blackbirded, kidnapped or sold. They developed the thriving sugar industries in towns like Ingham, Ayr and Home Hill. Migrants and refugees have contributed both socially and economically to this country, and, as such, Australia is known internationally to be a very successful multicultural society. Key multicultural refugee stakeholders such as the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, the Migration Council of Australia, the Refugee Council of Australia, the Settlement Council of Australia, Welcome to Australia and the Australian Law Council have publicly expressed their concerns about the changes that this government is proposing. We are a nation that values and celebrates diversity, yet it appears that the Turnbull government has forgotten this.
I come from a migrant background myself. Both of my parents are first-generation Australians on the paternal side of their families. My father's father came to Australia on a boat as a ten-pound Pom and my mother's father came here from Lebanon. Both of these men worked hard and contributed to their communities and provided for their families and, in turn, provided for their grandchildren. My parents worked hard to ensure that my siblings and I would have every opportunity to be contributing citizens of this great nation. My parents raised five children: two high school principals, one in the state school system and one in the Edmund Rice system; a family law barrister; a railway traffic controller and trainer; and me, who has the privilege to serve in this place. In fact, my mother's father's family did not speak English at all well when they came to this country. English was at least their second language. My grandfather was barely literate through no fault of his own, but I can assure you that did not prevent him from working hard and contributing and paying taxes. He fought proudly for this nation in the Second World War. The story of how his family was treated does not make for pleasant reading.
I understand the struggles families may have when transitioning from their former home to Australia. What I don't understand is the apparent lack of compassion and understanding that this government has shown in introducing what seems to be a very high-level English language test, when what is needed is conversational English. This government is taking a sledgehammer approach. It wants a level required by nearly all undergraduate degrees in James Cook University, which is in my electorate of Herbert, which is far higher than conversational English. My own family's experience demonstrates that not being able to speak or write perfect English does not mean a person does not or cannot work hard and contribute to their community. Malcolm Turnbull and his government are saying to all Australians that unless your command of the English language is at university level, you are simply not welcome to be an Australian citizen. This is just not fair. It is an elitist attitude to who is welcome to live in this country.
There is no argument that refugees and migrants living in Australia should be able to or be learning to speak conversational English, and we should be helping them to do so. Being able to make conversation enables people to communicate with others in the community and it makes settling into a new environment much easier. The use of language is central to effective communication and inclusion. Everyday communication does not mean International English Language Testing System level 6 in English. There is absolutely no doubt that a very large number of Australians would never reach IELTS level 6. Labor believes in supporting new citizens to possess a conversational level of English, which the existing test already achieves.
It seems the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is confused over the English test matter. The minister's own media release revealed that, in the last sitting week in June, he at no stage specified whether IELTS level 6 would be achieved through academic or general training. Everyone takes the same listening and speaking tests. The reading and writing tests differ in the specifics of their content and focus, depending on whether you are taking the IELTS academic or IELTS general training. However, the level of English required to achieve level 6 is similar. The content may differ, but the level required is comparable. Whether the content of one stream is easier, the scoring system is made harder to balance the level. That's because the general test components are marked harder.
In his media release, Minister Dutton completely misrepresented what level 6 of the general stream requires. His media release pretends to quote IELTS standards, saying level 6 'focuses on "basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts"', but this is an overall description of IELTS general training. It is not a description of what level 6 requires. The IELTS website says this of those who are able to achieve level 6: 'They can use and understand fairly complex language, particularly in familiar situations.' I highlight 'complex situations'. The minister has misled the public by using watered-down language to describe the true requirement.
I suggest maybe the minister needs to sit his own English test. In fact, why doesn't the entire government sit the level 6 IELTS test and see if they score the required 75 per cent pass mark? It might be a novel experience. I would also be curious to know if they could answer some of the questions proposed for the test. I would ask the members opposite if they have considered their own heritage when it comes to the high level of this test. Would their parents or grandparents be able to pass this test, for example?
Being an Australian should be about the person's values and commitment to country, not the level of the person's English skills. The Turnbull government says the test will adhere to Australian values. I would like the minister to let us know who the government is consulting in relation to identifying Australian values. Has the minister consulted with our first-nations people, who are the oldest culture on Earth and the original inhabitants of this country? Has there been any consultation with any of the multicultural groups that are settled here in Australia in order to determine what is useful in terms of the English language? If not, why not? How can we stipulate Australian values if we are not talking with the diversity of community members living in this country? These are questions that the Turnbull government needs to answer. Minister Dutton needs to step up to the plate and be open and honest with the public on this issue.
Labor and the government are united when it comes to national security. There is no question that we will always act properly and promptly on the advice of security agencies in the national interest. However, the national security advice received by the government has not come from a national security agency; it has come from Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific for this government. Here lies a perfect example of why this government needs to go back to the drawing board. In order to improve an area that may be of concern, you need to discuss those matters with those who actually know, like the national security agencies. We are yet to receive any advice from security agencies regarding whether or not these proposals will improve national security. Again, I think that there are more questions left unanswered by this government than answered.
Surely the question is: do we want to become a country that values and welcomes diversity, or do we want to become a country that allows people citizenship because they possess a high level of English? I, for one, want to live in a country that welcomes new citizens—citizens who have shown their commitment and allegiance to fully embracing their new country's way of life.
We must also be sensitive to the fact that a vast number of our own citizens are illiterate, for numerous reasons, and ask: what are we doing to assist them to improve their situation? Of course, a properly funded needs-based education would be a very good place to start. Australia has benefited enormously from the blood, sweat and tears of hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees. We must maintain our hospitable spirit whilst, at the same time, taking every step to ensure our national security. But I am certainly not convinced that the government's proposal will deliver a positive way forward, because this government's proposal would not have let my mother's father and his family into this country.
I would also like to raise this issue. On Friday evening, I had a mobile office on Magnetic Island where I met with a family that was beyond distress: a man, his wife and young daughter. His wife was also ready to apply for her citizenship and now she has to wait an additional four years. The distress in my community is great, and I really urge this government to go back to looking at this citizenship issue from a point of compassion, not the heartless approach that we are seeing.
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (11:17): By the end of the Second World War, Australia was exhausted. Alongside our allies, our country had withstood the onslaught of the Axis powers, the fall of Singapore and the bombing of Darwin, and the Pacific campaign had taken its toll. Despite winning the war, the threat of foreign invasion still sat at the forefront of many people's minds.
At the time in Australia, our population was less than 7½ million. We were a small nation exposed to large nearby neighbours and dependent on the protection of strong but distant allies. These factors contributed to a report commissioned by the Chifley Labor government which concluded that there was an urgent need to grow our population for both defence and economic development. At the time it was believed that Australia needed to increase its population by two per cent annually—one per cent by birth and one per cent by immigration. Consequently, the Department of Immigration was formed in 1945 under Minister for Immigration Arthur Calwell. The slogan of the day was 'Populate or perish.' This sentiment carried on through the Menzies era, and through most subsequent governments to the end of the 20th century.
Although many of our early migrants from this time were British, very quickly the door was opened to other nations. Consequently the requirements for migration were often eased. This was made easier, for example, by lowering the time required as an Australian resident before applying for citizenship from five years to two, and easing the English language requirement from adequate to basic.
We have proved ourselves time and time again to be a generous nation. We have welcomed migrants from the world over, from Eastern Europeans fleeing the Red Army in the 1940s to Vietnamese escaping Communism in the 1970s or thousands of Chinese students and visitors confronted with the Tiananmen Square crisis in 1989. From 1947 to 1998, a net total of 4,257,700 people migrated to Australia. We are an open and welcoming nation, and we will continue to be so.
In modern times, the coalition has strengthened the requirements for becoming an Australian citizen. This began under former Prime Minister John Howard, who introduced a test for Australian citizenship. The coalition quickly understood, in the wake of 9/11, that Islamist terrorism was going to change the status quo of international migration. As a Liberal, I take pride in Prime Minister Howard's legacy as the architect of our modern immigration system. It is his Pacific Solution that forms the basis for Australia's safe, orderly immigration model. This was thrown into chaos by the former Labor government. Need I remind everyone of 50,000 illegal arrivals on 800 boats with 1,200 deaths at sea? Order was restored only under the coalition, thanks to the work of Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull and Immigration Ministers Morrison and Dutton. Our system is now the envy of the developed world.
There is, however, always room to improve our system of immigration and the pathway to becoming an Australian. We must be clear-eyed about the dangers we face and unashamed in acting to safeguard both the Australian people and our liberal democracy or way of life. We live in dangerous times. We have witnessed Europe under siege due to its very lax approach to migration. There have been terror incidents across the UK and continental Europe over the last decade. In this month alone, more than 500 people around the world have died at the hands of violent, non-state actors.
While we have felt the effects of terrorism on our shores, we have been lucky compared to others. From September 2014 to April of this year, 63 people have been charged as a result of 28 counterterror operations around Australia. That's over half of all terrorism-related charges since 2001. In the same period, 12 major terror plots were disrupted. Australians are worried, and rightly so, for that is the point of terrorism: to create fear in order to compel people, Australians, to do the will of the terrorists. Last week's foiled attack on a plane at Sydney Airport, one of the most sophisticated terror attacks ever attempted on Australian soil, is a case in point.
This government has already taken extensive action to ensure the safety of the Australian people. We have increased counterterror funding for law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies and passed eight tranches of legislation to strengthen our response to the threat of terrorism. This bill complements the work already done. Where those measures are designed to stop immediate threats to the Australian people, this bill helps form a preventative approach. It creates a high bar of expectation and allegiance for our culture and values for those who would call Australia their home.
The measures in this bill form part of the government's response to the 2015 national consultation on citizenship report, Australian citizenship:your right, your responsibility, which indicated strong community support for strengthening the test for Australian citizenship. As the minister has said, the Australian community expects that aspiring citizens demonstrate their allegiance to our country, their commitment to live in accordance with Australian laws and values, and their willingness to integrate into and become contributing members of the Australian community.
As a representative of the people of Canning in Western Australia, I can absolutely affirm that community sentiment. I frequently canvass the views of my constituents. Since April I've done 21 community forums, and the most consistent feedback I receive is concern about the bar we set for immigration and integration into this country. For the overwhelming majority of people, this is not motivated by racism or prejudice, as some on the left will no doubt suggest. Rather it comes from an almost instinctive understanding that Australia is the country that it is thanks to a shared set of values and freedoms that are affirmed and practised by the whole community in day-to-day life. They understand that, if Australia opens its doors, potentially to people who do not share those values and who live by a different ethic, then the political and social consensus that makes Australia such a great country will be under threat, and that will ultimately change the character of our nation.
There are key measures in this bill, and I'll just go through them briefly. The residency requirements are increasing from one year to four years so prospective citizens have spent a reasonable amount of time living in Australia, and only a maximum of 12 months can be spent outside of Australia during this time. This is a measure designed to ensure that applicants are familiar and happy with the Australian way of life. The provision also gives applicants time to appreciate the commitment that they are required to make as citizens of Australia. There are no human rights implications, as permanent residency does not limit freedom of movement domestically or internationally.
We've introduced English language proficiency requirements to increase the requirement to 'competent' which is the equivalent of the International English Language Testing System general training test level 6. This focuses on basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts. Incidentally, it is the same requirement held by Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. It is not the same standard for university entrance, as is suggested by those opposite. Currently a basic level is required but it is not directly assessed. And I think it goes without saying that proficiency in the English language is essential for economic participation, social participation and integration into Australian civic society. Historically, Australia has had a higher English language requirement for citizenship.
Applicants for citizenship are also required to sign an Australian Values Statement. Without this statement the application is deemed invalid. The Australian Values Statement includes an understanding of and respect for: the freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion; a commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy; equality of men and women; equality of opportunity for individuals regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background; and, of course, the English language as the national language, which is an essential unifying component of Australian society. It requires applicants to demonstrate their integration into the Australian community, including by behaving in a manner consistent with the Australian values that applicants commit to when they sign the Australian Values Statement. For example, they need to send their children to school, they need to seek employment, they need to be earning income and paying tax, and they need to be contributing to the larger Australian society.
An applicant will also be assessed for specified conduct that is inconsistent with Australian values, such as: domestic or family violence; criminality, including female genital mutilation; and involvement in gangs and organised crime. I think we can all agree that we want none of those things in Australian society. The pledge in the act will refer to allegiance to Australia. Its use will be extended to all streams of citizenship by application, including citizenship by dissent, adoption and resumption.
What Australians want is security. They want economic security, jobs, lower power prices, wage increases, national security, strong borders and a capable Defence Force. I am proud that this government is increasing defence spending to two per cent of GDP by 2021, which is a complete reversal of what those opposite did whilst in government. Disgraceful! You treated defence like an ATM, and I won't let you forget it.
Australians also want cultural security. They want to know the government is protecting the great Western democratic traditions that make our country function and that enable this House to function every day, albeit imperfectly. Nonetheless, it does its job. Last week The Sunday Times in Western Australia editorialised on the threat of terrorism and commended this government for the safeguards it enacted. The paper spoke about the ongoing tension between liberty and security, saying, 'We are living in an age where jihadists seek to exploit our soft underbelly of freedoms to inflict as much carnage as possible.'
The unique freedoms of Western society do indeed leave our nation exposed to those who would do us harm. However, those freedoms are our strength, not our weakness. Those freedoms have: ensured the contest of ideas which takes place every day in this House; guaranteed the scrutiny of government by media; allowed the formation of unions; protected religious liberty; promoted scientific discovery; and fostered free enterprise. They are what has made us great, strong and prosperous as a country. But they do not exist in a vacuum. The values and freedoms that we take for granted are only made possible by broad community consensus and Australians who self-govern, self-regulate and don't need government interfering in their lives.
Australia did not just happen. I've seen parts of the developing world. I've been involved in nation-building. Australia is very, very unique. It's precious and it's something that needs preservation. If we water it down or remove a common belief in the freedoms of religion, speech, association and conscience then we fundamentally alter the character of our country. And if we allow concessions to the values that have formed us, we condemn our nation's future. That is the very purpose of this bill. It is about ensuring that our country, our economic system, our political system and the freedoms that we enjoy as an Australian community will continue long into the future by ensuring that those who come to this country—and we welcome them—also sign up to those values and freedoms that we hold dear.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (11:30): I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. My electorate of Wills is one of the most diverse in the nation. The data we have recently received from the 2016 census shows that close to 80 per cent of the people in Wills classify themselves as having culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and 37 per cent of them speak a language other than English.
Since the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection first announced his intention to make changes to Australia's citizenship laws, my electorate office in Wills has been inundated with questions, genuine fears and uncertainty about these proposed changes. People are afraid, uncertain and frustrated. It's important to note that many of these fears were a result of the conjecture, hearsay and speculation that came from the proposed changes having been announced long before any bill was available for scrutiny or even put to the parliament. Many people's fears were confirmed once we had a chance to look at the government's bill.
I and the Labor Party oppose the bill on the basis of the proposed changes to link the English language test to residency requirements and the government's dubious claims—some of which we've heard from the previous speakers—around national security. Of course, the government should do whatever is within its means to help people learn English. There's a level of isolation and extra challenges for people in their own lives if their English skills are limited. But that's about training people. A commitment to training, rather than elimination, is an investment in Australia's future. Labor is committed to assisting immigrants to obtain a level of English language that allows them to take full advantage of the opportunities and benefits available to all members of the Australian community. That's why Labor included additional funding of $24 million in our election commitment for the Adult Migrant English Program.
But this bill would mandate that migrants obtain a level of competence in English equivalent to that required to gain entry to many elite universities. That standard of English competency is defined in this bill as level 6 in the IELTS test. This is an absurd proposition. The government is not just sending a message to new immigrants; it is sending a message to all Australians who don't have university level qualifications that, if the Liberals had their choice, these people would not even be here or that they don't deserve to be here despite their hard work and contribution to this nation and don't deserve to be citizens. Impeccable grammar doesn't automatically make you a good citizen, nor does a university-level English education.
My family, like the families of many people who have contacted me, came from overseas. My family came to this country from Egypt for a better life and looking to contribute to and participate in the fabric of Australia. If the proposed English language testing had been implemented when my parents and grandparents arrived in Australia, none of them would have been allowed in. They worked hard and paid their taxes for over 50 years. They raised their children and never did anything but contribute to the cultural wealth of our country. Their story is not unique. In fact, it's shared by millions of Australians. Many people who have conversational English may never pass this English test at that level. So our concern is that these changes would develop an underclass of people who will always live here but never have the opportunity to pledge allegiance to Australia and be told that they actually belong.
Are we to deny citizenship to millions of people who would make such a contribution to this nation? Is that what we are saying here? These are potential Australians who deserve to have their voices heard. They deserve equality of opportunity to succeed, not to be told they aren't educated enough to participate. It is the Aussie ethos of 'a fair go for all' that is one of the great strengths of our multicultural society—and not just for those who are skilled enough to pass a university-level test. I have always said, and firmly believed, that our cultural and linguistic diversity is one of our country's key strengths. This bill will only is serve to tear that fabric, not strengthen it.
Conversational English has served Australia very well. Raising the requirement only serves to isolate and bar so many potential Australians—so many migrants—from becoming productive, contributing Australian citizens as so many millions have done over the past hundred years.
I come to the second egregious amendment, which could see an additional four years wait placed on those who live in Australia as permanent residents seeking citizenship. It is what the government has described as 'a need for further integration', and we've heard some of these arguments from the previous speakers. How can delaying someone's pledge of allegiance to Australia be beneficial? Of course it won't. It only further isolates that individual from Australian society. They live here and are good enough to pay their taxes, good enough to raise their families, good enough for the government to accept their taxes and good enough for other Australians to accept their contributions to their community but not good enough to be a citizen. You've got to wait another four years because apparently you haven't fully integrated.
When someone's already been living here for multiple years—for example, three years on a work visa and then 12 months as a permanent resident—making someone wait an additional four years before they pledge allegiance to Australia cannot be good for national security or social cohesion. It can't be good for the person or their sense of belonging to this country either. I know the doctors, the teachers, the parents, the students, the children, the retail workers—real people with real lives whose clock on the path to citizenship has been reset—are more frustrated with the government than ever. It is impossible for them to plan for their futures, to travel or to raise their kids with stability when the rug is being pulled out from underneath them.
As an example, I recently met with a couple in my electorate who are both working as doctors after having moved to Australia from India nine years ago. One doctor submitted their application prior to 20 April, the arbitrary date announced by this government to reset the clock. The other submitted the application after that date. So now they sit in limbo, waiting to find out what their pathway to citizenship actually looks like, having had the goalposts suddenly shifted. Of course, one family member—one doctor—can move to the citizenship ceremony within months. The other will have to wait four years. I can assure you that the government's changes are already proving to only further isolate, not integrate, individuals and their families.
The government is using fear to make their case as is often their wont. They make the dubious argument this is a matter of national security. Of course the Labor Party and I are absolutely committed to keeping Australia and all Australians safe. I have spent most of my career working in foreign policy and national security, and we have consistently stated our bipartisan commitment to doing so—for example, through the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and through the support of other legislation in this place. But national security legislation comes on the advice of national security agencies, and we have seen no evidence or received any briefings from the security agencies that the measures proposed in this bill will benefit national security outcomes. In fact, there are some concerns from some community groups that the measures proposed in this bill will alienate sections of our community, not integrate them.
It must be said that, if there's an element of national security in this debate, there are real concerns this bill will be detrimental to national security outcomes. Leaving people in limbo as to their final status without the prospect of ever being given the opportunity to pledge allegiance and gain citizenship does not promote social cohesion. If there are legitimate national security concerns that this bill resolves, of course they should be considered, but this advice must come from the experts in our national security agencies.
And here is the kicker: those who apply for citizenship who are permanent residents are already here. They've already undergone rigorous character tests and security checks to come here. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here. If they are a security risk—if this is a national security issue—they should not be living here at all. If there are problems with this process, the government should be up front about them with us and focus on preventing people who present security risks from coming here in the first place, not isolating already-contributing members of our society and their families. I will give you a cynical interpretation, Mr Deputy Speaker: to me and, I think, to many of us on this side, this looks like a cynical attempt to appease the far right of the Liberal Party; a further power grab by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, soon to be the super minister for home affairs; and an attempt to placate people like Senator Pauline Hanson on the far right. National security measures should be bipartisan on the whole. The government should not be playing games with this important issue, trying to link it to issues that are related to national security in order to shore up its own politics fortunes and to cover an obsession with the far-right fringes.
I think it is safe to say that this has been an atrociously handled process. It has demonstrated that the government is not genuinely interested in developing a well thought out, practical and consultative policy to ensure the best outcomes for our community as a whole. This is clear in the way this government has been talking about this for months—in vague, opaque terms, demanding that everyone support the measures without even giving detailed proposals. It's run a sham of a community consultation process, and it won't even release the findings of that process, of course, being afraid of airing publicly the flaws identified in the package. The government finally presented the bill on 22 June, only two weeks after finalisation of its community consultation process and the submissions that came from that process. It's actually keeping these submissions confidential. There's no way of knowing how they factored into the final bill or the thinking behind it, if at all. Despite the claims by the government that it already briefed Labor on the package, many measures in this bill were not flagged in any briefing our frontbenchers received. Given the government's poor handling of this package, the attempts to stifle public discussion and the complexity of the measures it is proposing, it is important that this bill be considered in detail through parliamentary inquiry so that relevant experts and community groups are able to air their views publicly.
This bill cannot be left unchallenged. It is flawed, it's inherently unfair and it's unacceptable, and that is why we oppose it. On behalf of the many people I have met who fear for their futures because of this government's proposed changes, I say this to the government: we will certainly not yield to you on the basis of a vague, opaque press conference or a deeply flawed and tardily presented bill. I say to the government: enough spin and enough smoke and mirrors on national security. It's too important to play political games with. Enough isolation and humiliation to hundreds of thousands of migrants to this country who are living in Australia, who are working, who are paying their taxes, who are raising their families and who are, by all definitions, integrated into this country already. They are already integrated. As such, they deserve and I believe they are entitled to have an opportunity to pledge their allegiance to Australia. Most of them would love so much to do so at a citizenship ceremony. All the people I have met and who have come to me over the past few months are committed to becoming Australians and are being denied that opportunity by these proposed changes. They are entitled to make that commitment and to pledge their allegiance to this country they have committed to. We should give them that opportunity. We should give them what we, as Australians, believe in deep in our hearts: a fair go.
Mr GEE (Calare) (11:43): I rise to support the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. As we have heard in this debate, the bill implements the commitment made by the Liberal and National government to strengthen the test for Australian citizenship by putting Australian values first.
Mr McCormack: Hear, hear!
Mr GEE: I note the support of the member for Riverina. I know that this legislation would be warmly supported by not only his electorate and his constituents but also the constituents of the neighbouring Calare, who have shown widespread support for the content of this bill. I have had a number of discussions with constituents who have spoken to me and expressed their support for the government and what they are trying to do with this legislation. I will focus on a few of the facets of this bill this morning. One of the key elements is that it puts into effect requirements that applicants will pledge their allegiance to Australia, undertake to uphold Australian values and demonstrate their contribution to the Australian community. What could be wrong with that?
I see the member for Riverina nodding in agreement.
Australian citizenship is highly sought after, and people from all around the world seek to become Australian citizens, to build and share in our prosperous and modern society. And we are a warm and inclusive society. Since 1949, more than five million people have chosen to become Australian citizens. We have welcomed people from all over the world, and the Calare electorate is no exception. I know—I regularly attend our citizenship ceremonies, from those in our largest cities like Bathurst and Orange to those in our smaller communities like Molong, and, without exception, those citizenship ceremonies are warm, and those new Australians are left in no doubt that not only are they welcomed but also their contribution to our country communities is very warmly welcomed and highly regarded.
The success of our nation is based on our shared values, rights and responsibilities, and the measures contained in this bill will help us build on this success. It puts into effect requirements that applicants will pledge their allegiance to Australia, undertake to uphold Australian values and demonstrate their commitment to Australia and its communities. It will ensure that we as a nation continue to welcome new Australians who are committed to making a positive contribution to their communities. It incorporates a number of key integrity measures to ensure that people who are granted citizenship in this country meet the key standards that the Australian public expect of our citizens.
The new measures have come about because of the government's 2015 National Consultation on Citizenship, and its Australian citizenship: your right, your responsibility report. This report indicated that there was very strong support in the community for strengthening the citizenship test.
The key changes to strengthening the requirements for citizenship include: increasing the general residence requirement, from one year as a permanent resident to at least four; introducing a stand-alone English test involving competent reading, writing, listening and speaking; and strengthening the citizenship test itself with new questions that will assess an applicant's understanding of and commitment to our shared values and responsibilities. There is a need for prospective citizens to sign an Australian values statement which makes explicitly clear those things that all Australians hold dear, and they include: respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion; commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy; equality of men and women; equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background; and the English language, as the national language, as an important unifying element of Australian society. That list aligns with the values of constituents in Calare and, indeed, in Australia generally, and I do not see how anyone could take issue with those values being highlighted to prospective citizens.
As I've said, the bill also requires aspiring citizens to demonstrate English language competence, through listening, speaking, reading and writing. This enables prospective citizens to become more integrated into our communities, and it obviously has advantages in helping to gain and maintain employment—and not only in that but also in assisting in building those important social links with other Australians. A 2016 report by the Productivity Commission backs this up, with its finding that English language proficiency is important for positive settlement and integration outcomes.
The bill also sets out an increase in the general residence requirements prior to Australian citizenship. As I have noted already, prospective citizens will be required to demonstrate a minimum of four years of permanent residence in Australia immediately prior to their application for citizenship, with a maximum of 12 months outside of Australia during this period. This will enable greater scrutiny of potential citizens and their potential integration into our communities, as well as an increased ability to assess their adherence to our values and laws. This integration includes a range of activities that align with the values that have been outlined earlier. They include sending children to school, seeking employment, earning income and paying tax, and contributing to the Australian community.
The increase in the years required for permanent residency will also bring Australia more in line with the general residency requirements of similar countries. The current requirements mean that only aspiring citizens over 18 years of age are required to meet the good character requirements, which involve a criminal history check, and this bill will amend those provisions and will require all applicants, including those under 18, to be of good character. As the minister pointed out when he introduced this bill to the House, only a small number of people would fail to meet that requirement, but the reality is, if you are seeking Australian citizenship, which is a huge privilege, and you have been involved in violence or crime, even if you're under 18, most Australians would say you should not be eligible for citizenship. So, if you've been involved in violence or gang violence, this provision is designed to make sure that people like that aren't able to become Australian citizens. It's extending the bar on approval for criminal offences to all citizenship application streams, and it amends the offence provisions to reflect modern sentencing practices. Australians can rest assured that these amendments reinforce the integrity of our citizenship program, at a time when national security is at the forefront of people's minds.
The bill expands the cancellation powers and provides that approval must be cancelled if the minister is no longer satisfied of an applicant's identity. It provides for the revocation of citizenship where a person became a citizen as the result of fraud or misrepresentation. Most Australians, including those in country New South Wales, would say, 'Well, what is wrong with that?'
Many would also query why the opposition would not be supporting this bill. There are many examples of those on the opposite side of the aisle being hypocritical on this issue. The member for Watson is on the record as saying we need stricter English language requirements and we should be asking potential citizens to commit to Australian values and abiding by Australian laws. The Leader of the Opposition himself has said:
I think it is reasonable to look for English language proficiency, and I think that it's reasonable to have some period of time… before you become an Australian citizen.
So hypocrisy is rife on the opposition benches, as it often is.
Mr McCormack: Writ large.
Mr GEE: Sadly, it is writ large, as the member for Riverina points out, on the opposition benches, and it's this churlish and negative approach to the legislative agenda which has become a hallmark of the parliament and the way the opposition is approaching the passing of legislation in this House. They are hypocrites on this issue, and sadly they're also weak on national security, which is, I think a disturbing development which will concern many Australians.
But the reality is this bill does have widespread community support. It's certainly supported in the Calare electorate, and I would like to commend the hardworking minister on bringing this bill forward into this place. I commend him and I commend this bill to the House.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (11:53): Let's be clear from the outset what the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is all about. Government members who are now leaving the chamber, including the member for Calare, who just spoke, would have you believe this is somehow about strengthening national security—it's not—and that it's somehow about enshrining Australian values—it's not. And they would somehow lead the Australian people to believe it's about strengthening the integrity of the citizenship program. It does not. There is only one purpose behind his bill. If you listen closely to what government members are saying, they don't give any reasoning behind the purpose of the bill. It's like a vibe. It's like a feeling. It's sort of like making us safer, but they do not exactly explain how or why. It's just this feeling that the government has that talking about this issue will somehow make Australia stronger and safer. It does not.
There's one reason behind what the government's doing, and this is to prop up the member for Dickson, the minister, in some sort of bizarre leadership campaign that's going on, the hunger games that is this government—the hunger games of ripping each other apart, dog against dog. Time and time again we are now seeing issues being played out, whether it be immigration or citizenship, or even whether Australians have the right to marry the person that they love, all through the prism of this twisted leadership campaign that is going on inside the government.
We have seen no evidence presented for this, and I will sit down now if the minister at the table or any government member can table advice from the national security agencies or from any government agency that says we need to strengthen the provisions in this bill. I will sit down right now if that advice can be tabled here and now. I will yield my time to those opposite if that evidence can be presented.
Well, I am waiting! There are officials here from the department. Where is it? Where is the advice? It does not exist! There is no evidence. We have seen no briefings provided from our national security agencies, that somehow these provisions will substantially benefit national security outcomes. The government cannot point to one document or one authenticated piece of information that even remotely suggests that this bill will enhance Australia's security.
I do not want any more lectures from government MPs about how they 'feel' that this is the way to go or that this is the right 'vibe'. Provide the evidence! What are you basing this on? Because you think it's a good idea?
A government member interjecting—
Mr DICK: Because you think that someone in the minister's office or the Prime Minister's office in an episode of Utopia rang up one day and said: 'We've got this great idea! Let's get back to citizenship. Let's talk about immigration. I know what we'll do—we'll just put a bill into the parliament. We'll wait. We'll talk about it for a couple of weeks, we won't provide any legislative framework; we'll just bang on about it in the media and bang on about it in the parliament as some sort of twisted wedge issue, but won't actually provide any data or hardcore evidence.' I will say it again: I will resume my seat now if the minister will come to the table, or if any of the government backbench members can provide evidence as to why this bill is required. Silence. Absolute silence! That says it all.
So let's go through the bill. Let's talk about the poor handling of the package, its attempts to stifle public discussion and also the complexities of what this bill will mean. Now, the English test: a key element of this bill is, as we know, the introduction of an English-language test which is so difficult that many Australians—perhaps, dare I say it, even members of those opposite—would struggle to complete it successfully. The English test at the IELTS level 6 sits at the same level required by many of Australia's top universities. And here is this bill, saying to people who come from all parts of the world, many from non-English speaking backgrounds, 'If you want to become one of us, you must speak at university level. We will value your level of English higher than your willingness to contribute to our country.' Being an Australian should be about your values and your commitment to your country, not how fancy your English is.
Currently, many visa streams already have English language requirements, with visa holders attending adult migrant English programs. These programs aim to teach level 4 to 5, which is referred to as 'proficient'. The government should do whatever is in its means to help people learn English—absolutely; I agree with that. Currently, we offer 510 hours of free English tuition through the AMEP program. That is at least five years' short of what the research says is required to reach English-language competency. For a migrant, we know that there are levels of isolation and extra challenges that come if their English skills are limited. But that's about training people, not about setting benchmarks so ridiculously high that they will only further serve to isolate more people. No doubt this test would be targeted at migrants who speak English as a second language, and would have a negative impact, particularly on women, refugees and parents who cannot afford child care or time off from work to study. I want to be very clear: this is a serious concern to many ethnic and multicultural community groups, as well as to humanitarian organisations.
I want to talk about my electorate of Oxley, where there are around 56,000 people who were born overseas and who now call our community home. Included in this figure are over 8,000 people who were born in Vietnam and who now call Oxley home. Oxley also has the fifth highest number of residents with Vietnamese ancestry, with just over 12,000 people—representing eight per cent of all Oxley residents. I want to be very clear about what these changes will mean. We hear a lot of lectures from those opposite about the great influx and the contribution of the migrant success stories, and they pinpoint the Vietnamese community. They often do this. But their changes would mean that many of the thousands of people that I represent, who have been hugely successful in our community, would not be granted citizenship under these changes. So stop wanting to have a pat on the back about multiculturalism and about the great contribution of ethnic communities, because what you're proposing means that, in the seventies, eighties and nineties, those people would not have become citizens of Australia.
On top of the great work of the Vietnamese in my community, we have also got flourishing Samoan, Philippine, Indian, African and many more multicultural communities with members who aspire to be Australian citizens. There is no greater honour than arriving in a new country, contributing and pledging allegiance and being welcomed as a citizen. But for many of these aspiring migrants, that dream will now be out of reach thanks to this government. Requiring university level English language is just an absurd proposition, and I believe the members opposite believe that. The Prime Minister and this government, through this bill, are not just sending a message to new migrants, they are also sending a message to all Australians who do not have university level qualifications that if the government had their choice those people would not be here. Talk about a bunch of snobs! Talk about an absolute bunch of snobs!
Let's take a close look at some of the example questions on the actual test to meet the IELTS band 6 standard. The first of these asks applicants to:
Write a letter to the accommodation officer complaining about your room mate and asking for a new room.
This is the test those opposite want. An applicant will be marked on the 'length of the response, its cohesion, vocabulary and grammar'. This is a response, which I will read to the chamber:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with my room-mate. As you know we share one room, I can not study in the room at all any more if I still stay there.
That response 'does not meet the benchmark' and, as such, would not be acceptable for Australian citizenship.
Let's take another look at the actual exam that those opposite are wishing to place as a new barrier to migration. Applicants are asked to read an essay about bee behaviour and respond, needing to get at least 30 out of 40 questions correct on an accompanying test. The passage reads:
The direction of the sun is represented by the top of the hive wall. If she runs straight up, this means that the feeding place is in the same direction as the sun. However, if, for example, the feeding place is 40 [degrees] to the left of the sun, then the dancer would run 40 [degrees] to the left of the vertical line. This was to be the first of von Frisch's remarkable discoveries. Soon he would also discover a number of other remarkable facts about how bees communicate and, in doing so, revolutionise the study of animal behaviour generally.
I agree that this sounds more like the zigzagging of this government's approach to government, which does not surprise any on this side of the chamber, but with examples like these there will be a large number of people who will never pass the English test. This will only develop an underclass of people: people who will always live here, but who will never have the opportunity to pledge allegiance to Australia and never be told they belong to this country.
If we look at this bill in real terms and what it would mean for Australian students, the results are startling. Currently our national test results from NAPLAN show 15.3 per cent of year 9 students are below benchmark in writing—talk about needs-based funding, but that's for another day. This means they would not achieve a band 6 on the IELTS test, the same benchmark set by the minister for this new English test. That means, of the 267,000 year 9 students around the country, that approximately 45,000 would be ineligible to become Australian citizens. That's the new test that you're applying. If there was ever a more damning piece of evidence showing the overreach of the immigration minister, this is it. What does that sort of message send to young people in our schools? The minister's claim that his citizenship changes don't require university level English is wrong. Clearly he has no idea what's actually in this legislation. And a quick check of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website would have you believe that the minister believes this bill is already in force, that it's been signed off. It states: 'The changes outlined in this bill apply to citizenship applications lodged on or after 20 July 2017.'
The other thing we have heard from speaker after speaker is that, somehow, this is about improving national security. As I said, we have seen no evidence nor have we received briefings from our security agencies that the measures proposed in this bill will substantially benefit national security outcomes. We note from concerns from the community organisations that some of these measures will actually further alienate sections of our community, which is counter to national security outcomes. If there are legitimate national security concerns this bill resolves, we will consider them, but this advice must come from the experts in our national security agencies, not from the Minister for Immigration.
It is important to remember the national security measures should remain bipartisan. The government should not be playing games with this important issue and trying to link this more to Liberal Party extreme right wing ideology. It is important to note that those who apply for citizenship are already permanent residents and undergo rigorous character and security checks. If there are security risks, if there are character risks, they should not be here at all. If there are problems with this process, the government should be up-front about those and focus on preventing people who present security risks from coming here in the first place.
There are also provisions in the bill to increase the residency requirement of applicants having four years of permanent residency. There is already a four-year waiting period to apply for citizenship which takes into account time already spent in the country under visa streams along with a mandatory one-year permanent residency period. By imposing a further four-year residency period, the government will only further delay people the chance of becoming Australian citizens when they have already contributed so much to our country. This is creating two classes of citizenship in this country, two classes which I and my community will not support. The delay has no evidence that the government will provide and is simply unfair. This issue is a concern for groups that have arrived in Australia on student or business visas. It also impacts residents who want to attend university.
Let us be clear: Labor is absolutely committed to keeping Australians safe from serious criminal offenders and violent criminals. Such individuals should not become citizens and should be sent home where practical to do so. We note this bill contains additional measures such as the ability for the ministers to set aside decisions of the AAT concerning character and identity if it would be in the public interest to do so. While a decision to set aside would be open to judicial review, we note legal experts have raised concerns that this bill would undermine the role of the tribunal as an independent body which provides for review of administrative decisions by the government. Labor will, of course, consider any measures that might improve law and order outcomes through the Senate inquiry. We will support measures that genuinely serve to keep our community safe.
Mr Wallace interjecting—
Mr DICK: I am listening to the member for Fisher. He can get up when I conclude my remarks, provide all the evidence and data from the national security agencies, from the government itself and table it all about why this bill is necessary—not because he would like these changes or because he thinks it is a good idea but actually provide the data. That is what Labor is saying and that is why we are not supporting the bill. (Time expired)
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:08): My electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast perfectly embodies the words of Australia's national anthem 'Truly our land abounds with nature's gifts' from the spectacular and fruitful hills of our hinterland to the golden beaches of our coast. There is a wealth and opportunity to be worked for in our abundant fishing stocks, our bountiful agricultural land and our growing population. On the Sunshine Coast, as much as anywhere in Australia, our warm and inviting seas permeate our lifestyle. Sunshine Coast residents certainly have every reason to rejoice in our country and that is why so many Australians, both those born here and those who were not, choose Fisher as their home, and why wouldn't they? However, this bill is about securing and fulfilling the other sentiments of that anthem. The familiar words of the composer of our national anthem, Peter Dodds McCormick, celebrate our nation but they also challenge us to live up to it. Our anthem calls on us to combine with courage for our country and it enjoins us to keep Australia not only young but also free.
This bill invites us to look again at how we fulfil our nation's promise and proposes a way forward that I believe all Australians can get behind. This certainly remains a young country. Formal Australian citizenship has existed for less than a lifetime. Membership of our nation is still not defined by our families' generations of history on our land. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 28 per cent of us today were born overseas. That percentage has increased every year for the last 15 years. In fact, only 51 per cent of Australians were born here to two Australian parents. Among our Australian citizens today are representatives of more than 300 original nationalities. One in 20 of us nationally, and more in Queensland, were born in the United Kingdom. Many others were born in New Zealand, China, India, the Philippines or Vietnam. Two hundred thousand of us are from Italy, 180,000 from South Africa and 150,000 from Malaysia. In recent years, we've added to these numbers with compassion for those in the world's growing conflict zones. Our annual intake of humanitarian and refugee visas has risen this year from 13,750 to 16,750, and next year it will rise again to almost 19,000. This is in addition to the 12,000 Syrian refugees that the government has committed to take.
Nearly a third of us were not born here, while almost half of us are the children of one immigrant parent. We come from varied countries and diverse cultures from all over the world. Yet few, if any, countries with a democratic make-up like ours have our social harmony and our cultural integration. We boast that ours is the most successful multicultural society on earth. So what binds us? What is it that can bring us together and mould from this diversity a shared community and a common identity as an Australian? There are two things that unite us: the legal instrument of citizenship and a shared commitment to Australian values. We appreciate our common future through our common status as citizens, while we ensure the success of that future through our commitment to an Australian way of life. The two must go together, and both must be universally strong.
When it comes to the institution itself, since 1948 we've recognised that our shared way of life needs its own legal recognition. For almost 70 years, we have agreed that a system of citizenship is necessary to give form and focus to our sense of community. No-one today, I would suggest, would deny that Australian citizenship is crucial to our immigration system, to our representation overseas or to our sense of nationhood. However, to be effective in cementing our common identity, citizenship must be meaningful in itself to all Australians, both those who were born here and those who joined us later in life. It must have significance and integrity. It is a serious concern that, in the government's 2015 consultation, 64 per cent of respondents believed that Australian citizenship is undervalued. When it comes to our identities, perception is extremely important. When people do not believe that citizenship is meaningful to their fellow countrymen and countrywomen, it loses its power to bind us. In part, this bill is about repairing that perception and returning the unifying force to Australian citizenship.
In the consultation, people identified a range of reasons why they believe that citizenship is undervalued. Some identified that the rights and responsibilities of citizenship are taken for granted. Respondents said they felt that Australian citizenship was too easily won and that it was too open to those who want to game the system, getting the economic and legal benefits without making any substantive commitments to our country. While our people are happy to look upon new citizens as Australians just like them, they rightly expect those who hold citizenship to ensure that the term retains meaning by putting in the time and effort to become one of us.
With the rights of citizenship, however, there must come responsibilities. This bill will go a long way to making that a reality. The bill will ensure that all applicants for citizenship have a record of four years of permanent residency. Applicants will have four years to learn about life in our country and demonstrate the considered seriousness of their commitment to Australia. During those four years, the bill will also require that applicants demonstrate their active efforts to integrate into our society by sending their children to an Australian school, getting a job here and otherwise contributing to our community.
The bill will require them to speak English to a competent standard. How can an Australian citizenship bring us together when already more than one in five Australians do not speak English at home? This percentage has been rising since 2011. While people would never demand that all citizens speak English at all times, and nor should they, they rightly expect that they should be able to communicate successfully with all of their fellow Australians. That is one thing this bill will help to achieve.
Others in the consultation believed that citizenship was undervalued because of a fundamental contradiction that there are people in our country who hold Australian citizenship while maintaining allegiance to a culture or a way of life that explicitly rejects our values. I know that this is a concern to many of my constituents. Every week, I receive letters, emails or messages online which express local people's concern that the values of our society are being undermined by individuals who are permitted to become Australians while rejecting so many of the beliefs that we hold dear. I don't want to exaggerate the size of this problem. Most new Australians embrace our way of life and integrate well into our society. However, there are a minority who cling to views on issues like the role of women in society or the place of extreme religious interpretations in our institutions that most Australians would consider unacceptable. I will say more about this, but it is certainly the case that this reality undermines the perceived value of citizenship for those who do adhere to our values.
The bill will go a long way to repairing that perception by requiring all new Australians to take a pledge of allegiance to our country and to its people. Firstly, we will reassure all citizens that those that share their privilege have been required to think carefully about their allegiances and to commit to Australia. Secondly, by requiring all new Australians to sign a statement of values and demonstrate that they have lived in a manner consistent with those values, we will reassure all citizens that their country men and women have made a decision, a decisive commitment to what makes us all Australian. With the four-year period of residency as a prerequisite, we will be able to track an applicant's commitment to those values.
This bill will do a great deal to restore the integrity and the meaning of Australian citizenship. It will restore faith and confidence in what it means to be an Australian and ensure that this legal instrument can play its part in bringing us together and supporting our national identity. But this bill will do more than that. It will ensure that Australians believe in our citizenship.
The bill will also contribute, in itself, to ensuring that our community genuinely pulls together in upholding and promoting our shared Australian values. We are clear on what those core Australian values are. They are listed in an Australian values statement which is available on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website and in their Life in Australia booklet. It is worth reading the relevant section of this statement. It is clear and succinct. This House, like our prospective citizens, would do well to know exactly what we are signing up to. It reads:
Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good
Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background
Apart from it being an extraordinarily lengthy sentence, who could argue that those are very important values that we should all share?
It also states:
the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.
Which of us would not support such a statement? Which of us could not sign that statement today? Most importantly for this debate, which of us could honestly say that Australia would not be a better place if every member of our society had the same commitment to those values? We can never guarantee that, but, when it comes to those from outside Australia that we welcome into our society, we have an opportunity to ensure that they are made aware of their responsibilities and that they have agreed to uphold them. This bill facilitates that opportunity.
It also requires applicants to match their words with their deeds. Not only will they have to sign the statement of Australian values but their conduct over their years of permanent residency will need to demonstrate their commitment to upholding them. Integration is more than sending your children to school and getting a job, though these are undoubtedly important. We cannot accept as Australian citizens those who use the privilege of being here to advocate for discrimination, for violence, or for oppression of others. In particular, we cannot allow those who have acted in direct contradiction of our values to become citizens. We cannot allow those who have committed domestic violence, engaged in the dreadful practice of female genital mutilation or become involved with organised crime to join us as Australians. These things would be specifically assessed by the department under this bill and would constitute grounds for rejecting an application for citizenship.
Today 80 per cent of eligible immigrants in Australia become citizens. Australian citizenship remains one of the world's most prized and sought after identities. That fact is a testament to the success of our society, but it is also a challenge. It is the responsibility of all Australians to preserve what it is that makes Australia fair. It is in particular the responsibility of those of us in this place, whose unique privilege it is to set the terms under which we accept new people into our community. Our citizenship system gives us an unparalleled tool to support the society that Australians want to be part of. It is the system of our togetherness and a means to promote it. This bill restores the significance and the integrity of our citizenship system. It will help us to preserve the Australia that we want, and I commend it to the House.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (12:23): I too seek to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. To some extent this discussion is about our future. This is about what we say a future Australia should look like. I'll come to the issue about values and tests a little later.
I draw your attention to the amount of young students in our galleries today and welcome them here to Parliament House. The fact is that those young people sitting up there are our futures, so, when we speak in this House and talk about change, we are simply using this period of time to make change for, hopefully, the betterment of this country which those young people will eventually take over and run while, hopefully, looking after us.
I return to the bill. When this matter was introduced into the House, the minister said it was about having strong public confidence and support for our migration and citizenship programs. As everybody in this place knows, when this was introduced into the parliament, in the second reading speech the minister spoke about issues associated with national security. It seemed to me at that stage that he was attempting to build this tenuous link between national security, immigration and the wider argument of accepting refugees in this country. I know many speakers opposite have tried to make a point about our migration programs and the number of refugees we take, as if they are reading off a script.
As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, I happen to represent the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia. In addition to that, my region has been selected to receive the majority of the refugees coming out in the government's recent humanitarian intake out of Syria. Issues about migration, immigration to this country, and issues about refugees impact considerably on my electorate. Two real issues have impacted over the last couple of years. The issues of the government's approach to section 18C in the Racial Discrimination Act and wanting to talk about free speech and the ability to allow hate speech certainly impacted in my community. But similarly, in relation to this matter, I have seen an outpouring in my community about the issue of citizenship.
Bear in mind that almost a third of my electorate are Vietnamese. The Vietnamese didn't come to Australia before the fall of Saigon in 1975. Malcolm Fraser is actually revered in my community because he was the Prime Minister that allowed the Vietnamese in. He is revered. All those who came in 1975 are very, very good citizens in my community. They are very hardworking and very dedicated. They passionately believe in freedom, democracy and the respect for human rights. Their kids have gone on to do wonderful things in our community. They are doctors, lawyers and accountants. They are well represented throughout our professions.
They see this piece of legislation as a slight on them. I happened to be at a forum convened by the Vietnamese Community in Australia—VCA's New South Wales Chapter, headed by Dr Thang Ha—to discuss this very thing: citizenship. They certainly took exception to a range of issues in this. The two broad issues that they spoke about were the English tests and the issue of the period of time before you would be eligible to make an application for citizenship.
I will start with the English test. Bear in mind that these were mainly the sons and daughters of migrants who came here post 1975, and the vast majority are doctors of medicine, PhDs or graduates in their own right. They have very much passed our tertiary education system. They asked: 'What happens when we sponsor a grandparent? What happens when we sponsor a sibling who hasn't had English as a natural language?' I know that, when I try to give at least a paragraph or two in their language when I speak to a Vietnamese community, it probably leaves them rolling in the aisles. I've got a monotone voice—I understand that—but they've got a tonal language. I didn't appreciate, from their perspective, how hard it is for them to acquire English. To acquire it to university entrance level might have been okay for these young ones who have grown up in our system, but, as they said, 'We can have conversational English with our grandparents, but they could not pass that test.' As a matter of fact, many of their parents couldn't pass that test. Many of those parents who are currently practising doctors would not pass at that level. These are things that have really impacted on a community such as mine.
It wasn't just the Vietnamese who brought this forward. I recently met with a group of Turkish migrants to this country. Bear in mind that, only 50 years ago this year, Australia signed an agreement with Turkey for guest workers to come to Australia to help develop this country. There was a big celebration in the New South Wales Parliament House, which I had the honour of addressing. The Turkish community made their view very clear to me about this notion that you have to be here for another four years. During the course of this debate plenty of us have commented that we're talking about moving from a one-year requirement to four years. I would have thought four years is not bad, by the way. I can accept that four years is probably a good period of time in which to acquire that knowledge and feel settled in our country. They come to this country and learn a little about our community—and we'll probably learn a little about them in the process. Despite what this act says—currently, there is a one-year period before you can make an application—people come here on a temporary visa. They are here either working or studying. By the time they make an application, if you go through the statistics, most have already been living in Australia on a permanent basis for more than four years. They have acquired a sense of what Australia is like. They have acquired a sense of our values and what it's like to be part of the Australian community. They front up and make a choice to declare their allegiance to Australia. They want to declare their allegiance to this country. And what do we do under this proposal? We say, 'That's all very good, but you've got to wait another four years.' We would be talking about people who are committed to this country being here for a decade before they are given the opportunity to swear allegiance to Australia. I would've thought encouraging people to swear allegiance to the country is a good thing, something to be encouraged, something quite powerful—because these people are stating their commitment to Australia and Australia's future.
The young people up in the gallery are our future. They probably think this is all just rhetoric, because in their schools they probably wouldn't make a distinction. I didn't make a distinction when I grew up. I grew up in a working class suburb, with lots of migrants. I didn't know which kids came from a migrant background. They probably had better sandwiches for lunch than I did! I didn't know which kids came from a Housing Commission background or anything else. Young people are far more accepting when it comes to people's futures than we are in trying to codify it—as we are trying to do now—in terms of this piece of legislation.
The most abhorrent thing in this debate so far is to be able to couch all this in terms of national security. This is somehow going to make life more secure for Australians by, firstly, encouraging people to have university-entry English and, secondly, requiring them to be here for almost a decade before they can apply for Australian citizenship. I would have thought the best thing for us in this country is to have people swearing allegiance to our country and being prepared to abide by our rules and values, not simply shunting them aside and saying, 'We may or may not accept you in a decade's time.' I would have thought that is contrary to our views on national security.
I take umbrage at the fact that we somehow want to play this racist card once again, as was done with respect to 18C. We want to pin to this debate some notional aspect of national security. The fact is that, in this country, unless you are an Aboriginal person, we are all immigrants or descendants from immigrants. It doesn't matter when you came here or how you came here, we all have that as part of our heritage. That has been probably the most successful aspect of Australia. The Prime Minister has on many occasions talked of this country being the most successful multicultural country in the world. I think he is right. But I don't think we need to couch that in a way that wins the votes of those who might want to listen to the redneck radio talkback hosts who vilify those in our community who come from backgrounds other than Anglo-Celtic, ostracize those who come from other countries and cast aspersions about their practices.
We have, already, a sense of what it is to be Australian. As I said, unless you're an Aboriginal person, we have all brought with us our cultures, our heritage and our past. That's been interwoven into what it means to be Australian. Being Australian is being part of a big heterogeneous country which has been able not only to attract to itself the hopes, dreams and aspirations of all those people who come here but mould them into where they want to go in the future. That is our future.
I'm concerned that we are having this debate on the basis that we think that having people stay for another four years beyond the four or five years they have already been here is a good thing. I think having people assess what it is to be Australian, assess what our values and commitment to our land are all about and swear allegiance to our country is paramount, a good thing. I am not sure what sort of message raising the bar on English language to the point of university entrance level—which, by the way, would probably knock out many in the Australian community from being able to pass that test—sends to people: 'Unless you're academically up to that level of university entrance English, we don't want you.' There might be a couple on the other side of the aisle who might be worrying about their futures!
Mr Chester: Name names!
Mr HAYES: Name them—yes, I should actually take that. I'll let him name his own boss! But to be able to do that on the basis of saying this has something to do with national security is an affront to us as Australians, because Australia—as Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, has always said—is a successful multicultural country. It's a broad tapestry that we have woven together that has made this country great. Simply trying to demean it by starting to talk it down, making levels of difference, putting the bar higher and making it more difficult for some, and doing it under the guise of national security, does not behove those here in their respect. As the minister said when he introduced this bill, it's about giving public confidence and support to migration and citizenship programs. I would have thought we as Australians are the product of positive migration and citizenship programs throughout the decades, and that's something that we should all be proud of. We should also be proud of all those who come to this country with a view to swearing allegiance to us, to our values and, more importantly, to our futures together.
Mr HOGAN (Page) (12:37): I rise in support of the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. One of the primary roles of government is to provide a safe and secure country for our citizens. Citizenship is a privilege. It comes with responsibilities. You need to share our values. You need to celebrate our freedoms. You need to appreciate our way of life. And, if you don't, you are not welcome.
I'd like to go into what some of these values are, because they are described in the legislation. This bill is not, as the previous speaker said, about demeaning multicultural societies. This bill is about strengthening our multicultural society. We are a successful multicultural society—one of the best in the world. We all want to maintain that, and we want to celebrate people coming from everywhere to our country, but to do that successfully we have to have guidelines and values that are understood by every citizen in this country. I want to list them as they're listed in the legislation.
The first one is respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual. You might say, 'Of course,' but that isn't how all people think. When you look at the many battles, wars and disputes around the world, not all people think individual have a right to freedom and dignity. The second value is very important as well: freedom of religion. We are okay with anyone coming here and celebrating and practising the religion that they feel is right for them. But do not be fooled: there are many people, including some in this country, who believe that our country should follow the religion that they do and do not recognise the validity of other religions. That is not okay for a successful democracy either. Then there is commitment to the rule of law. We all have to adhere—even though we might not agree with it—to the very distinct separation of church and state in our country which contributes to the fabric of our very successful multicultural society. Every citizen in this country has to respect that we have laws administered by the state which may be different from the rules and laws of your own churches. Parliamentary democracy is one of the foundations of our successful multicultural society which we need everyone to respect. Equality of men and women is one of the foundations of the success of our nation, as is equality of opportunity for individuals regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background. Having English as our national language is an important unifying element of Australian society, and in the legislation there are parameters around that.
Applicants will need to demonstrate—which is obviously why there is a qualifying period—their integration into the Australian community in accordance with the values I have just spoken about. To do this, they would have to demonstrate that they have abided by our laws, are competent in the English language, are sending their children to school, are seeking employment when there is a capacity to do so—rather than relying on welfare—and are involved in wider community groups. One of the wonderfully unifying things about our country—and I would like to acknowledge this because it is a very important part of the fabric of our community—is the role that public education has played in our community. Public education has meant that people from all races and all walks of life have played in school grounds together and have been in classrooms together. This has been very important for first-generation Australians, and indeed second-generation Australians, as they assimilate into our country.
The measures contained in this bill will help us build on our success as a multicultural society. It will make sure that we are committed to both welcoming new Australians and making sure they make a positive contribution through the many opportunities that our country affords. We as a government are committed to maintaining strong public confidence and support for our migration and citizenship programs. We are proud of our heritage and our generosity as a nation. We look forward to welcoming new migrants—irrespective of race, religion, nationality or ethnic origin—who are prepared to embrace our Australian laws and values and seek to contribute to them. The Australian community expects that aspiring citizens will demonstrate their allegiance to our country, their commitment to live in accordance with our laws and their willingness to integrate into and become contributing members of our community.
In accordance with the announced measures, there will be an increase in the general residence requirement. An applicant for Australian citizenship will need to demonstrate a minimum of four years of permanent residence immediately prior to their application for citizenship, with a maximum of 12 months outside Australia over that period of time. This represents a change from the current requirement of a minimum of 12 months as a permanent resident. Strengthening this residency requirement is intended to support integration and facilitate a more thorough evaluation of a person's commitment to Australia, our values and adherence to our laws. It also brings Australia—I have some comparisons here that I will not go through now—much more in line with the general requirements of other nations. What we are proposing in this legislation is very similar to many other countries throughout the world.
The national consultation found:
A residence requirement in citizenship law is an objective measure of a person’s association with Australia. It also serves as a probationary period, so that a person’s word and deeds across this time can be considered should the person apply for Australian citizenship. Increasing the value and integrity of citizenship by changing the residence requirement from four years lawful stay to four years permanent residence is appropriate, …
Much has been said about the English language parameters. The English language is essential for economic participation and social cohesion. In 2016 the Productivity Commission highlighted the importance of English-language proficiency for integration and settlement outcomes. There is also strong public support to ensure aspiring citizens are fully able to participate in Australian life by speaking English, our national language. Obviously—it goes without saying—this will very much break down any isolation a person would have if they were not able to speak the English language.
Aspiring citizens are currently required to possess basic English. This is indirectly assessed when an applicant sits the citizenship test. Aspiring citizens will now be required to undertake a separate, upfront English-language test with an accredited provider and achieve a level of 'competent'. There will be exceptions for applicants, such as for applicants over 60 years of age or under 16 years of age at the time they apply for citizenship, or for those with an enduring or permanent mental or physical incapacity. There will be other exemptions from testing, such as are currently the case for skilled migration assessments and for those applicants who have undertaken specified English-language studies at a recognised Australian education institution.
They will be required to sign an Australian values statement in order to make an application for citizenship. Applicants will be required to make an undertaking to integrate into and to contribute to the Australian community and, as I listed before, its values and the demonstration of those values. The bill provides that the minister may determine changes to the text and requirements in relation the Australian value statement by legislative instrument. The values base will also be added to the citizenship test.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection will assess the information based on documents provided as part of an aspiring citizen's application, and may also asses this at interview. In addition to existing police checks which are undertaken as part of an application for citizenship, an application will also be assessed for specified conduct that is inconsistent with Australian values, such as domestic or family violence, criminality and any involvement in gangs or organised crime.
The pledge will be extended to all streams of citizenship by application, including citizenship by descent, adoption and resumption. Applicants over 16 years of age will need to make the pledge before they can become a citizen. Applicants for citizenship by conferral on the grounds of being born to a former citizen or under stateless provisions will no longer be exempt from making the pledge. Exemptions will include permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity. It will also refer to allegiance to Australia. The government has passed legislation separately to provide for the loss of citizenship for dual nationals who betray their allegiance through involvement in terrorist related activity.
Consistent with measures introduced in the last parliament, the bill contains additional measures to improve the integrity of the citizenship program. Currently, only aspiring citizens aged 18 years and over are required to meet the good character requirement, which involves criminal history checks. There is a small minority of people under 18 who clearly do not meet community expectations of good character and who have been involved in serious or violent crimes, such as gang violence. The bill amends these provisions to require all applicants, including those under 18, to be of good character. The bill also amendments the offence provisions to reflect modern sentencing practices, including where a person is subject to a court order, or for home detention or where they have not been sentenced to prison but are nonetheless under obligations to a court.
The bill provides that approval must be cancelled if the minister is no longer satisfied of the applicant's identity or they have become a risk to national security. The minister may also cancel approval if satisfied that the person no longer meets other eligibility requirements: The bill extends the maximum period of time when the minister can delay an applicant making a pledge of allegiance from 12 months to two years to better align with time frames for some complex investigations.
The bill provides for the revocation of citizenship where a person became a citizen as a result of fraud or misrepresentation. The minister must be satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain a citizen, while law enforcement agencies, for a range of reasons, may not be in a position to prosecute all forms of fraud and misrepresentation of the citizenship process. The government is committed to providing the highest levels of integrity where possible. Each person being considered for revocation of their Australian citizenship would be given natural justice before the minister makes a decision. The decision to revoke citizenship on these grounds would of course be open to judicial review.
The act provides that a person is deemed never to have been an Australian citizen where they attained citizenship by descent but were later found not have had an Australian parent at the time of birth. There have been difficult cases in recent times in relation to this. There have been people who are registered as Australian citizens by descent and thought all their lives that they were Australian but found later in life they were not eligible in the first place and consequently were deemed never to have been a citizen. The proposed amendments repeal the operational law provision and insert a discretionary power. This will allow the circumstances of a particular case to be taken into account when deciding if citizenship by descent should be revoked.
Children acquire citizenship automatically under the current act if they are born in Australia to an Australian citizen or permanent resident parent or if they are ordinarily a resident in Australia until their 10th birthday. The bill specifies that automatic acquisition of citizenship on a person's 10th birthday applies to those persons who have maintained lawful residence in Australia throughout the 10 years, including maintaining the right to return if they travel outside Australia during those years. These amendments will not affect access to citizenship for children born in Australia to New Zealand citizens or for children who are stateless. The changes also remove the automatic acquisition of citizenship on the 10th birthday of a child born to a parent with diplomatic or consular privileges and immunities.
The provision of citizenship for children found abandoned in Australia is also amended to be consistent with the original policy intent, which is to reflect the international obligations under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. It also amends the definitions of 'spouse' and 'de facto partner' to be consistent with the Migration Act and to reflect the policy position that the relationship between the applicant and the Australian citizen spouse or partner must be continuing.
In summary, I commend this bill to the House.
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:53):
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.
At every citizenship ceremony I attend I say those words proudly along with our new citizens. It really never gets old for me, because, like a lot of children of migrants, I am very alive to the sliding doors alternative: the life that I would have had if my parents hadn't left behind everything that was familiar to them and taken the greatest gamble of all.
Like most children of migrants, I'm also acutely aware of the challenges that my parents overcame, the sacrifices they made and the fact that they did all of that to give their children a better life. I love saying our citizenship pledge, because it is such an elegant reminder of what is expected of us, what it takes for me to repay this country for all that I've been given. It remind me of my duty to value and protect our precious democracy—not to take it for granted but to be an active participant in it. It reminds me that I need to respect the rights and liberties of others and to understand that every one of us is equal. It renews my commitment to fight against sexism, against racism and against homophobia—indeed, to fight against discrimination of any kind. It reminds me, of course, that I need to obey the law. But, more than this, it reminds me that I need to work hard to ensure that our legal system itself is robust. I need to respect the separation of powers. I need to ensure that all Australians have access to justice, not only those who can afford to pay.
I love saying the pledge at citizenship ceremonies because those of us who were born here should not take our great good fortune for granted. In 2011, in a speech at the Sydney Institute, I suggested that Australian school children should learn this citizenship pledge at school and say it at assemblies as American children do with the pledge of allegiance, because to be Australian, to be born here or to be brought here, and to grow up here, in one of the most favoured nations on earth, all you really need to do are three things. No doubt, in this place, from those on the other side, we will hear all sorts of nonsense about what Australian values really are and what a real Australian is like and how people should prove their loyalty to this country. I thought it was interesting to hear the Prime Minister open this debate some months ago by calling on newcomers to join us as Australian patriots. Apparently, not knowing that Donald Bradman's batting average was 99.94 is as bad as burning the flag or something. But it is actually not more complicated than this: participate in our democracy, respect the rights of others and obey the law. It is a quite remarkable return on investment. We couldn't be luckier. We couldn't be prouder to be Australians. And these three things that are expected of us give us a remarkable return.
Much of the debate in this place has been around the new English language requirements of this bill. There is absolutely no doubt that learning English is vital. It is vital for economic and social participation. Learning English means being able to work. It is the best protection against vulnerability and isolation. It enables participation outside of one's language group or community and intercourse at all levels of society. It protects against exploitation. It protects against loneliness. It connects older migrants with younger generations from their own community and the broader Australian community who were born here and perhaps don't speak the language of their parents and grandparents. It makes work, volunteering, friendship with your neighbours and community engagement possible.
But this bill goes too far in setting that standard at IELTS 6—university-level English. Requiring migrants to learn university-level written English is too high a bar to jump before people can become citizens. Had this bar been in place, we would have lost many great Australian citizens who have gone on to make a phenomenal contribution to our Australian society. Frank Lowy has often spoken about the fact that he had no English when he came to Australia. He left school at 14 and no doubt would've failed this test had he been asked to sit it before he became an Australian citizen. John Kaldor had his education interrupted by World War II and, instead of going to school, as a refugee in France he spent his days with his mother visiting Paris's galleries and museums, educating himself and developing a lifelong love of art that has made him one of Australia's most generous art philanthropists.
My own parents, like most postwar migrants and refugees from Europe, spoke no English when they got here. And, in those days, settlement services did not really run to much. My father learnt English at work, although that was not that easy because most of his colleagues who were working on the Parkes to Broken Hill railway or, later on, on the Snowy scheme did not speak much English either when they arrived here. My mother took even longer to learn English than my dad because, after her first few years here, working in factories or working as a domestic, she was at home raising a family. My mum learnt English from the patient, kind women who were her neighbours, she learnt it at the school gate and, when we eventually got a television, she learnt it from the television too. My parents put up with people saying to them, when they were quietly speaking Slovenian to one another on the train, 'Speak English here!'
Of course people who live here should learn English. The best way we can make that happen is to make sure that each one of us extends the hand of friendship in the same way that our neighbours in Carvers Road did. The best way the government can do its bit is to properly fund adult migrant English services. This is precisely the opposite of what those opposite are doing. The government's introduced contestability of funding in the Adult Migrant English Program which has meant that the traditional provider, the Adult Migrant English Service has lost much of its work. Of course, some of the funding will go to private providers, but the difference is that the Adult Migrant English Service had run its program for 60 years, assisted by an extensive network of volunteers. It was not just about learning English; it was about helping migrants and refugees adjust to their new life in Australia. This means that at a time when we are actually increasing the English language requirements the traditional provider is losing its funding and hundreds of English language teachers are losing their jobs.
The new test obviously does not affect people from English-speaking countries, so it particularly discriminates and makes citizenship harder for people from countries where English is not the first language spoken. The thing that particularly worries me about this is that where you have a family that migrates together and the dad finds work quickly and practises his English every day at work whilst the mother is at home raising children, it particularly discriminates against women. We have seen that for generations of women in Australia.
In fact, what's interesting about setting the English language bar at this level is that it would mean around 13 per cent of Australians would not actually pass this test. According to the Survey of Adult Skills published by the OECD in 2013, some 12.6 per cent of adults in Australia attained only level 1 or below in literacy proficiency in a different test to the IELTS test. Are we really saying that those people also aren't good Australian citizens?
How are new migrants supposed to get a university-level English proficiency with just 510 hours of English language support provided by the government? We have seen Christine Mooney, who has taught new migrants English as an additional language for nine years in Heidelberg West, quoted in the ABC's Fact Check website as saying:
To reach a standard of English equivalent to IELTS six within the 510 hours of tuition provided by the Government to new migrants, an applicant would probably have to be either a skilled migrant or highly motivated.
Many new migrants, especially women who were refugees escaping persecution, might struggle to reach a "competent" level of English without having to undertake further paid tuition.
My dad learnt something new every day. He brought me up and taught me that it was important to learn something new every day. His favourite magazine was New Scientist. His favourite radio broadcaster was the great Australian astronomer Professor Fred Watson. When the Chinese government sent out the terracotta warriors for the first time, we queued for two or three hours for our family to see them. Every Sunday morning he woke me up playing classical music. He took us to the opera. My father left school very early. His education was disrupted by the war. He completed his plumbing apprenticeship in Austria, and he had to do all of that again when he came to Australia because his qualifications were not recognised here. It was the same for my mum. Her education was interrupted by the war, but she learnt Italian in six months when she lived in Italy. She learnt English when she came here too but, like I said, more slowly than my dad did because she was at home, raising a family, and not interacting at work every day.
I don't know whether either of them would have passed a university-written English language test, but you could not find more conscientious, hardworking, honest, law-abiding Australian citizens than my parents. For their gratitude, loyalty and love of their new home, I think this country was lucky to get them too, and millions like them. Of all that post-war migration from southern Europe—Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia—how many of those people would have passed this test? Yet they have raised their families here to be great Australian citizens. All they wanted to do was work hard, pay their taxes and raise their families in safety and peace.
I don't think my mother could have written an essay in English, but she can communicate in six different languages. She couldn't write an essay in English, but she's raised three kids who became a lawyer, a geologist and a member of parliament—and, more importantly, honest, hardworking members of our community. She couldn't write an essay in English, but the neighbour's children she looked after when we were growing up still visit her 40 years later. The teenagers who made our home their second home—because they could not talk to their own parents—still bring their children to visit.
My parents couldn't write an essay in English, but they were the first ones to take a meal around to someone's house if they were sick or to mow their lawn or do their shopping. My parents were the ones the neighbours came to talk to if their marriages were in trouble. They were the ones the teenagers came to talk to when they couldn't talk to their own parents. My parents couldn't write an essay in English, but my father worked six or seven days a week. They went to church, looked after their family and neighbours and volunteered. How can this government say my parents and millions like them are not good Australian citizens and would not make good Australian citizens? By all means, let's encourage people to learn English. But let's also invest in English language classes and settlement services. More importantly, let's be good neighbours to one another. Let's be kind and extend the hand of friendship.
As for people who break the law, by all means let's make it impossible for them to ever become Australian citizens. But don't forget that one in three Australian women experiences domestic violence in her lifetime. The proposition that adding a couple of questions to the immigration test is going to fix that is ludicrous.
I want to return, in conclusion, to the words of the pledge. We ask new citizens to participate in our democracy, respect the rights of others and obey the law. Every Australian should do this. Those of us who've had the privilege of serving in this place have an extra duty. It's our responsibility as the elected representatives of the people of this nation to make the laws that we ask our fellow citizens to uphold and obey. And it's our duty to make sure that those laws reflect our values as Australian citizens. This bill fails that test.
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (13:08): I'm sure that everyone in this place and the other place would agree that attending citizenship ceremonies in your electorate is one of the most fulfilling parts of being a parliamentarian. And one of the most special times of year to do this, of course, is on Australia Day. I attended three separate ceremonies on Australia Day, convened by the cities of Mitcham, Marion and Onkaparinga, and I have attended many more since. I was particularly delighted to be there when my wonderful next door neighbour, a young South African family of four, became citizens earlier this year. They make a wonderful contribution to our sporting community in South Australia. As I can personally attest, they are lovely, community-minded people who help to make our nation a better place.
When I am at citizenship ceremonies, I like to take the opportunity to encourage people to think about their contribution to our nation when they formally become citizens. I see it as a chance for people to reflect on what they might do for Australia—to have a fresh start, in a sense, and reassess what they are doing for our nation—and to celebrate the wonderful achievement that is Australian citizenship. This can take many forms—from simply exercising their democratic right to vote at local, state and federal government elections through to working harder than ever to serve our community by, for example, volunteering, which helps to keep our nation great and enhance our social fabric.
As we say in our national anthem:
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share …
However, it is a great privilege to be granted Australian citizenship and it is, therefore, right that we ensure that those seeking citizenship believe in and uphold our values. Australian citizenship bestows great privileges and is a common bond uniting us all, whether we are born here or have migrated to Australia. That common bond comes with a commitment to our country and to our people. Membership to our diverse Australian family should be granted to those who support our values, respect our laws and work hard by integrating and contributing to make Australia an even better nation.
I want to share one wonderful migrant's story. One of my constituents, a lady who is now in her 80s, came here post-World War II, when she was in her teens. Her family were fleeing Europe after the war. They were sent to remote Western Australia, where their job was to clean the local pub. She spoke to me about it at length, and it sounded like it was a pretty challenging existence. It would have been an enormous culture shock for her and her family. She was not afforded the opportunity for further education that she had expected she would undertake in pre-war Europe. Despite this, she could not have been more proud to be an Australian. She held no grudges that her life hadn't turned out in the manner in which she might have expected it would have if she'd remained in Europe and if the war hadn't occurred. She was just so grateful to live in such a peaceful, safe, democratic nation. She and her husband worked very hard, raised their kids and are still, in their late 80s and early 90s, volunteering for a range of organisations.
These are the sorts of reasons why we are one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world. We should all be very proud of that. We are an immigrant nation, and we invite over 130,000 people from over 210 countries each year to officially take part in our society that so many generations have worked tirelessly to build. As we know, we were all immigrants once. My maternal grandmother's family settled in South Australia in 1838, two years after its settlement. My paternal grandfather's family arrived two years later, in 1840. We have been in South Australia a long time. My other ancestors arrived in the late 1800s. Australia has welcomed millions of people since then in similar ways. In fact, since 1949 more than five million migrants have become part of our national story; they have contributed to and enriched our Australian life.
But it is a privilege to become an Australian citizen, and one which comes with a responsibility to our shared values that cannot and must not be taken lightly. This bill has been introduced to strengthen the institution of Australian citizenship. It is integral that a priority is placed on respect for Australian values and on demonstrating an ability and a willingness to integrate into our society. This is in the national interest and, critically, it's for the benefit of these aspiring citizens. Reinforcing the integrity of the institution of citizenship has been on the government's agenda for some time. In 2015, Minister Fierravanti-Wells and the Hon. Philip Ruddock launched a national consultation on citizenship. This bill reflects that good work and the community sentiment that it contained.
In our ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world, we must ensure our current hard-working Australians are kept safe and secure. This is one of the most fundamental roles that the federal government has. We also want to ensure that people are going to settle in and integrate well in our society when they come here and when they are granted citizenship. Currently the law requires a basic level of English; however, there is no mechanism for direct assessment. This improvement to the existing requirement is in line with the government's 2016 Productivity Commission report, which highlighted the importance of English language proficiency to integration for migrants to achieve settlement outcomes. The recent national consultation on citizenship also indicated strong support for these changes. It should come as no surprise that being able to speak the common tongue of a nation, our national language, is a crucial part of being a part of it. It's shameful these requirements have been overstated by the opposition, which claim that a university level of competency is required to pass. In typical Labor fashion, they are just trying to scare the community and put fear into people's minds. Perhaps it could be that the opposition, in fact, needs to brush up on their reading skills themselves and are confusing the academic and general streams of the international English language testing system. It is level 6 of the general stream that is required. That level focuses on basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts, which I do not think is unreasonable. Without that level, we are just setting up new migrants, new Australians, to fail or at least to have a really tough time integrating.
Of course, it is not surprising that Labor's mantra these days is to never let good policy get in the way of fear mongering and scaring the community. It is unfortunate because they have come a along way from where they were 10 years ago when the Manager of Opposition Business was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying, 'We need stricter English language requirements …' Back then, the member for Watson believed so firmly in what we are now doing that Prime Minister John Howard received a compliment from the senior Labor member who said his focus on the need for people living in Australia to try to learn English was spot-on.
Similarly, on the values test we are introducing, the Labor member for Watson lamented in 2006, 'Why is it that no-one is asked to commit to respecting Australian values and abiding by Australian laws?' Later, 'Anyone who has a problem signing that should not be allowed here.' It is no wonder why the member for Watson was in this place putting on quite a display this morning. We on this side, on the other hand, stand by our Australian values, and I support the Australian values statement, which requires applicants to make an undertaking to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community in accordance with Australian values.
Values based questions will also be added to the citizenship test. The current Australian values statement includes an understanding of these really important values: respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion; commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy; the equality of men and women; equal opportunity for individuals regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background; and English language as the national language and an important unifying element of Australian society. Labor have done a fair bit of backtracking based on their previous statements and the words that we have heard here today in the chamber. In fact, Labor have come a long way since April of this year, when the Leader of the Opposition said, 'I think it is reasonable to look for English language proficiency and I think it is reasonable to have some period of time before you become an Australian citizen.' It is unfortunate to see those opposite are pitted against the broader Australian community on these changes and, in fact, against the government as well. By contrast, the government's amendments will enhance and strengthen the fabric of Australian society. I look forward to continuing to welcome new Australian citizens into our national family with the knowledge that we are making that family tighter and more integrated than ever.
In summary, it is a great privilege to be granted Australian citizenship and it is, therefore, right that we ensure those seeking citizenship believe in and uphold our Australian values. If there is one fundamental role we have in this place, it is to keep our great nation the peaceful, respectful and free place that it is. It is our duty to keep Australians safe and secure. This bill will help make sure this is the case by ensuring that every single person we grant the great privilege of citizenship to believes in our Australian values.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:19): Each month, I attend at least one citizenship ceremony in my electorate. At those ceremonies, I welcome and congratulate our new citizens on taking up citizenship in one of the best parts of one of the best countries in the world. Those new citizens are living out what we all profess is part of the Australian national anthem—that is, for those who have come across the seas, we have boundless plains to share. Multiculturalism is an approach to building our Australian society together, for we recognise and celebrate we are all better off by growing our nation's diversity, and each new citizen is a critical element of that. But multiculturalism is more than simply a diverse population and a non-discriminatory immigration policy.
In Australia, multiculturalism is underpinned by respect for traditional Australian values already. Everyone is invited to continue to celebrate their cultures within a broader culture of freedom but, more importantly, with respect. Respect for each other, respect for freedom, respect for the rule of law. Multiculturalism, though, is about inviting each and every individual member of society to be everything that they can be, as well as supporting all of those and each new arrival in overcoming whatever obstacles they face as they adjust to a new country and society, allowing them to flourish as individuals and our country to flourish as a consequence, because a truly robust, liberal society is a multicultural society.
The Australian brand of multiculturalism is also centred on the concept of citizenship. A pledge of commitment is part of that citizenship; it is part of the citizenship ceremonies that I attend and it is required in order for our new citizens to enjoy the full benefits of Australian society. They do that by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people. Pledging to share our democratic beliefs. Pledging to respect our rights and liberties and pledging to uphold and obey our laws. So it has long been the case that everyone who wants to live in Australia and become an Australian citizen signs up to our laws and democratic values. The Labor Party and I are in favour of maintaining this status quo. This seems to have escaped the member for Boothby as part of her last contribution to this debate. I hold a number of concerns in respect of this legislation that the government now brings forward. I have concerns in relation to its increase in the general residence requirement. The establishment of a university-level English language test and amending the Australian values statement and pledge of commitment to put greater focus on integration into the Australian community.
To turn to the four years extension of time that will now be required of people seeking citizenship, the idea of increasing the general residence requirement for new Australians is actually counterintuitive to the express objects that the government has put forward. If someone wants to become an Australian citizen and is ready and willing to take the pledge of commitment that is citizenship, then why should we make them wait even longer? This would only serve to further isolate migrants to Australia. This is something that the bill is supposed to be opposed to. To make things worse, it will make Australia an even less attractive venue for migrants that we are trying to attract to Australia in the first place because they will have to wait even longer to become fully active participants in our society, the thing that we actually want them to do.
The most common pathway to citizenship in Australia is through employment-sponsored migration visas. In the past, a person would only have to hold permanent residence for two years before being able to then apply for citizenship. But now we are going to add on an additional four years to the process of applying for citizenship under the changes being put forward by the government today. This is, in reality, denying migrants the opportunity of being able to take up their full position in the Australian community that we so want.
This discussion of integration is an important one, because one of the contributors to this debate before mentioned a word that does actually make me shudder; it is 'assimilation'. Assimilation is exactly the opposite of all the things I just mentioned as being the strengths of our multicultural society. We do not want to have a bland, vanilla, homogenous society in this country. What has made this society great has been the diversity that has been created by the diverse backgrounds and cultures that have come in through our multicultural society. We are not The Borg. It is not a system of 'You must assimilate or else'.
We must ensure we have an integrated, well-functioning society, most definitely, but delaying the capacity for people to take up their full citizenship in this country only serves to make that harder. Part of what I want to make clear here today is that we need to make sure that, when people talk about integration, they are not talking about assimilation. We do not want to be that bland country. We do not want to cast out those that can make our country even better than it is today by only accepting a narrow prism of people into this country and making everybody the same. I could probably go on for hours about the philosophical basis for that assertion, but I won't bore my colleagues on this side, though sometimes I think those on the other would be blessed by reading some of that material. But I go on.
One of the other ridiculous aspects of this legislation is the change to the level of the English proficiency test. I read an article that was published yesterday, which I think a number of others in this chamber probably read as well. It was about an Irish veterinarian who had applied for permanent residency in Australia. She is not only a fully-qualified vet but has a double major in history and politics, something for which I have immense respect. As part of the process of applying for permanent residency—so this is even before citizenship—she was required to complete a mandatory test involving writing, reading and speaking, with the oral section scored by voice-recognition technology. When this university-educated vet completed the test, she was told she had a score of 74 points. I think that would get her a distinction in university, actually, but that was below the 79 points required for the residency visa. So Louise now faces a lengthy wait before she can re-sit the test and is considering applying for a more expensive visa in order to avoid having her current skilled migrant visa run out before she is granted a new visa. I think that this story really highlights just how ridiculous is the test that has been proposed by the government for citizenship in this law, because this is not about making sure that people who wish to become citizens of this country can integrate and function well; this is about setting a standard that is almost exceptionally difficult to pass.
Mr Khalil: Deliberately?
Mr KEOGH: It is deliberately hard. They are setting a standard that is deliberately hard to pass. In fact, it is a standard that, I would dare say, the majority of people in this chamber and those in the other place would have great difficulty in trying to pass, and we are the representatives of the Australian democracy. As we have heard from many contributions from this side of the House, and, in particular, the contribution made by the member for Sydney just a few moments ago, we should just think about what impact that level of snobbery, the setting of a standard that is so high, will have on our country. It would have excluded many people who we know have made a lasting positive contribution to our communities, and not necessarily those who went on to great things in the parliaments of our nation or as business leaders, though there are many examples of that. It would have excluded many who came into my area around Armidale and in the surrounding suburbs in the electorate of Burt—people who came out after the Second World War, lived in migrant camps and went and worked on the orchards, and who ended up buying those orchards and becoming employers of people who needed work during downturns in our local economy. They learnt a sufficiency of English. They worked their guts out to make sure their children could have a better life than the one that they had. They made sure that their children were at school; they made sure that they were getting a good education. And those people were critical parts of our community. They joined local government councils. They were members of Rotary. They would come and pay my grandfather, who was a lawyer, in oranges that they grew in their orchards, because that was all they had. They were the bedrock of our community. They are the exemplars of exactly what we want people in our community to be—people who would come together and work together and go to church together, who would join community organisations and help each other out when they needed it. They could communicate with each other. Some of them spoke broken English, but they all had conversational English; they understood what they were talking about. They didn't sit university exams—though many of their children did—but they were able to fully participate. They integrated into our society here. They are our society here. They are the people of Australia. On the point of citizenship, when we talk about the pledge, and the people that we are having join our society here: you want to become a full member of our society? Well, that's our society that you are pledging to join. So it seems completely antithetical to set a test that is so hard and so difficult that you would be actually excluding people like those who have made Australia great in the first place.
It has to be said that the test is removing us from a test—the test that we've been using to date, which has actually worked and has made our society the great society that it is now.
The legislation also establishes a pledge of allegiance for prospective citizens, who would be required to prove that they hold Australian values and have integrated into society. It is the pledge which, as I mentioned before, they all have to make when taking up Australian citizenship in the first place.
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. The member for Burt will be given an opportunity at that time to continue his contribution.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Werriwa Electorate: Volunteers
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (13:30): On Wednesday, 18 July, I was very pleased to able to host a morning tea and celebrate with 15 of Werriwa's volunteer heroes. Volunteers are the backbone of our community, allowing participation in sporting events, providing food and comfort to our elderly, looking after children and new arrivals to our country and providing calming and green spaces in our aged-care facilities. Volunteering also contributes enormous amounts to our economy, providing support that money is not available to buy. The latest census revealed an increase in the number of people volunteering—18.1 per cent of our community volunteer, and they come from every walk of life and every age group. This was demonstrated in the contributions from Werriwa volunteers. I thank Kirsten, Warren, Pat, Jayne, Maureen, Mary, Hazel, Helena, Bill, Joe, Srideve, Sid, Donna, Rebecca and Colleen for all their hard work and commitment to our community, but I especially thank their supporters for nominating and recognising their hard work. I am very much looking forward to being able to reward more volunteers next year.
Liverpool Council also recognised volunteers at their annual Gift of Time function. Forty-three diverse groups were recognised for their efforts in volunteering in our community, at a function I was privileged to attend. My electorate is a better place for the contributions of our volunteers. They turn our suburbs into communities.
Weipa 50th Anniversary Celebrations
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:31): I would like to congratulate the organisers of the 50th anniversary celebrations for the town of Weipa in Far North Queensland last July. Weipa is situated on Albatross Bay on the western cape peninsula between the Mission and Embley rivers. In 1967 the Queensland government named the area Weipa North. It was the site for a newly established Comalco mining town. Today it is known only as Weipa, and is the home to a very vibrant community of around 3,500 people. Weipa is steeped in natural beauty and Indigenous cultural heritage, and is the perfect starting point for anyone wanting to explore Cape York's amazing beaches, unspoiled wilderness and incredible fishing.
The Weipa Town Authority put on an outstanding weekend for those who have played a part in shaping Weipa into the town that it is today. Events included a reunion, historical bus tour, cricket match and gala dinner, and community festival. It was wonderful to share my reflections of Weipa, which go back to the 1970s, and catch up with people who were the real pioneers in their day and hear their amazing stories as we celebrated how much the town has grown. As development south of the Embley River progresses and the bitumen continues to snake towards Weipa, its long-term future as a thriving and diverse city of the western cape is absolutely assured. Congratulations to the Weipa Town Authority and all of those associated with the organising of this event on your terrific 50th anniversary celebrations.
Tasmania: Tourism
Tasmanian Government
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (13:33): It is that time of the year, when we start to receive answers to questions taken on notice during Senate estimates. This year's answer to a question relating to the Cradle Mountain master plan has been telling. The Cradle Mountain master plan is the No. 1 tourism infrastructure project for Tasmania's tourism industry and my region. It is forecast to attract an extra 60,000 visitors a year and inject an additional $30 million a year into the state's economy. During the last election campaign, the federal opposition committed $15 million towards this project; the coalition committed only $1 million, for a feasibility study. We now know part of the reason why. Answers from Senate estimates have shown the Hodgman state Liberal government has not made a single representation to the Commonwealth to have this project funded. Will Hodgman is also Tasmania's tourism minister. What sort of tourism minister won't even stand up for the most important project in his state? It beggars belief that he could be so derelict in his duty. This Liberal Premier and so-called tourism minister has form when it comes to coming to Canberra to see federal Liberal ministers and a Liberal Prime Minister. Will Hodgman: a hero at home but a coward in Canberra.
I know my disappointment will be shared by our local regional authority and Tasmania's peak tourism body. If a Liberal state government that is without a backbone cannot deliver results for Tasmania then it is time for a Labor state government to put Tasmanians first.
Brisbane Electorate: Defence Procurement
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (13:34): I would like to record my support and enthusiasm for the recent announcement on the LAND 400 Army contract. It's a multibillion dollar project to build around 650 state-of-the-art defence vehicles. It will be the biggest and most expensive acquisition project in the Army's history.
One of the two companies vying for the tender, Rheinmetall Defence, has announced it will base its operations in Queensland, should it win the contract. What that would mean for Queensland is billions of dollars of work, new high-skilled manufacturing jobs and all of the flow-on benefits for local businesses who would service the manufacturing process or support all those new workers.
This announcement has demonstrated the effectiveness of having the full force of Queensland's LNP MPs and senators—all 26 of us—working together in Canberra to achieve results for Queensland. We've been working hard on this together; engaging with the tenderers and with the state government, and in advocating for Queensland with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence Industry.
We feel that Queensland is a natural fit for this project. The ultimate customers, the biggest Army bases in Australia, are in Queensland. Enoggera Barracks, for instance, is on the edge of my electorate and the electorate of the member for Ryan. We have hundreds of businesses already in Queensland which are servicing the defence industry and which will be integral to the supply chain for building these vehicles.
I support Rheinmetall's announcement for Queensland, and we eagerly await the federal government's decision on the project.
Parramatta Electorate: Catholic Diocese of Parramatta
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:36): On 1 July Sister Catherine Ryan was appointed Chancellor of Parramatta Catholic Diocese. As a non-Catholic, I have to say that it looks like a fantastic decision. For a start, she is a Sister of Mercy and anybody who knows the Sisters of Mercy knows how fabulous they are.
She has also been a trailblazer. As an administrator in the Catholic Education Office Sydney, Sister Catherine founded the Leadership Development Program for Primary School Principals in 1974. She has served as a teacher and principle of several Catholic primary schools in Western Sydney.
In the 1990s she expanded her pastoral service as the chaplain to people living with HIV/AIDS after initiating her clinical pastoral education at the Royal North Shore Hospital. She was appointed Congregation Vicar in 2004 and Congregation Leader in 2010 of the Congregation of Sisters of Mercy Parramatta. Just as Sister Catherine was a trailblazer then, she is today as the first women today appointed to such a position in New South Wales. The appointment was made by the relatively-new Bishop Vincent Long Van Nguyen. It is a testament to his leadership.
I have always believed that leadership is defined by the qualities of those who choose to travel with you and measured by the character of those you strengthen. By that measure, this appointment reflects well on both of them. Congratulations to Sister Catherine and I wish her the best of luck in her service.
Johnson, Mr John Richard 'Johno', KCSG
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah) (13:37): I rise to mourn John 'Johno' Johnson, for 13 years president of the New South Wales Legislative Council—a fine Australian, a great servant of the Labor Party and a friend to many on this side of politics too.
Johno had four great loyalties: to his party, of which he was a life member; to his country, which he served indefatigably in many ways rather than merely in the parliament; to his church—a Papal knighthood was the only honour he ever accepted; and to his family, who have been by his bedside for months now.
For years, Johno did his best to recruit me. After the 1993 election I was an unemployed ex-Hewson staffer. Johno called to say, 'It's time you came back to your true home.' 'I've never left the church,' I replied. 'No,' he said, 'the Labor Party.' 'I could almost be tempted,' I said, 'except for Paul Keating and his crusade to make Australia a republic.' There was a long pause, 'Comrade, there's no hope for you,' he said, and hung up the phone!
There will always be hope for Australia whilst ever we have people in public life who epitomise the ideals of duty and service as Johno Johnson did so magnificently.
Connors, Mrs Robyn
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (13:39): I too would like to put on the record my support for the member for Warringah. I think that is the first time I have ever actually agreed with anything that he has had to say! Johno Johnson was an amazing contributor to our movement and his loss will be felt very keenly.
I rise, though, to pay tribute to Mrs Robyn Connors, an educator who had a long history of service to New South Wales public education. Robyn had been a teacher since 1974 and it is undoubtable that teaching has evolved since she began. And Mrs Robyn Connors had shown much aptitude to remain current to be able to teach across generations.
Her career gave her a lot of opportunity to travel and expose herself to country and metropolitan schools, including Werrington Public School, where she met her husband, who was teaching at nearby Londonderry Public School. Robyn had a love of teaching drama, music, science and choir. Like a lot of teachers, she did some of this during her lunch times, and before and after school. She was a passionate educator, a global thinker and a woman of enormous empathy. While she had a love of teaching all students, her light shone brightest when she was working with girls in science, introducing them to a traditionally male-dominated subject. She had a passion for working with kids and engaging those ones who needed something extra. This was her magic.
Robyn taught my own children at Blaxland Public School, and showed immense patience working with all children. Her enthusiasm for learning was contagious and inspirational. She was an activist and a campaigner, standing up for the rights of all people in the community she loved and the kids she taught, including her advocacy around Western Sydney airport. It is a true reflection on her work when 20 of her former students turned up on a Saturday and gave up their time to assemble as a choir— (Time expired)
Harris, Ms Jenny
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:41): On the northern beaches, we believe in protecting and preserving our way of life. People move to Mackellar to enjoy a lifestyle only possible when one is surrounded by the bush and the beach, so it would come as no surprise that preserving this environment is at the forefront of our community's volunteering efforts.
There is one person I would like to recognise in particular when it comes to dedicating themselves to our bushland. Jenny Harris' irrepressible advocacy for Terrey Hills and Duffys Forest knows no bounds. She has harassed and harangued every elected member of parliament, both state and federal—even some elected to council—since, well, forever. I cannot remember a time when Jenny has not advocated on behalf of the electorate.
It is no surprise that, after so many years of doing good for her community, her community has recognised her efforts. For her outstanding voluntary service to the Pittwater community, Jenny was recently awarded the New South Wales government's 2017 Pittwater Community Service Award by my friend and colleague Rob Stokes. Jenny has been a vigorous proponent of the culture and character of one of the few remaining rural areas of the northern beaches—an often thankless task. Jenny is a true environmental and heritage advocate for our community, and she does not let you forget it. Every opportunity is used to advocate on behalf of a bird species, a rare plant or the bushland.
Melbourne: Transport Infrastructure
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:42): The East-West Link put Melbourne's liveability under threat, and the community fought it off. You would think that Labor and Liberal governments planning toll roads would have learnt their lesson from this, but now the Victorian Labor government wants to build its own west-east link. The West Gate Tunnel toll road will funnel tens of thousands of cars onto the streets of North Melbourne, West Melbourne, Docklands, Carlton, Parkville and the CBD. It will result in more traffic, more pollution and more noise for residents. It will smash the liveability of communities in Docklands, North Melbourne and West Melbourne. You don't fix congestion by building more roads.
So who benefits from this? Not my constituents in Melbourne. Not the environment. Not the people in Melbourne's west, who are crying out for decent public transport links for the city but who instead face the same traffic jams, just in a slightly different place. Not the people who live on local streets that are used as B-double truck routes; who need a long-term fix via a rail freight plan, not a bandaid solution from a company that profits from inducing car traffic. Not commuters in the east, who now face higher toll road costs to pay for all of this. And not the people on the public housing waiting list, who will be left waiting as the toll road gets built over E-Gate when we could be building 1,000 new public housing homes.
It's Transurban who will be laughing all the way to the bank. Yesterday they announced that their net profits increased last year by 850 per cent and that it pulls in over $2 billion a year in tolls. And it looks like they are writing Labor's transport and planning agenda. This is a test for Victorian Labor. Will Daniel Andrews and Richard Wynne back the community and public transport, or back Transurban? (Time expired)
Chenoweth, Professor Lesley, AO
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (13:44): In this place we focus on delivering opportunity for all Australians, but we know we cannot do this work in isolation. We work in partnership with hundreds of vital institutions across our nation, and among those are our universities. Our universities are charged with not only furthering the education of Australians but ensuring their graduates are the best equipped to meet the challenges of our advancing world.
In my electorate of Forde, there has been no greater champion for this cause than the head of Griffith University's Logan campus, Lesley Chenoweth. Lesley Chenoweth AO is the Pro Vice Chancellor of the university and a foundation fellow of the Australian College of Social Work. Lesley has spent the past seven years as campus head and another 11 years before that working hard to promote and increase participation in higher education in the Logan community, which is one of Australia's most culturally diverse. She was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2015 for her work.
This month, Professor Chenoweth is officially retiring from her role at the university. I want to take this opportunity to thank Lesley for her valuable and irreplaceable work and contribution to our community, because they have assisted many students in difficult circumstances to become far more effective and better in their community than they otherwise would have been.
Murray, Mr Les James, AM
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (13:45): On 31 July we lost Les Murray. He was a giant of football, yes, but as a person he was so much more: a loving partner to Cidinha; a loving father to his two daughters; a wonderful mate to his friends like Craig Foster—'Fozz'—and all his friends at SBS; a journalist of renown; a superb professional broadcaster, the best of his generation; a refugee; a migrant; a passionate advocate of multiculturalism; a Member of the Order of Australia. I got to know him while I worked at SBS. We became good friends, forging a bond over our shared passion and love for football, but he also generously shared with me the knowledge and the wisdom he accumulated over decades. He showed me kindness and made me laugh with his sometimes salty humour. I will miss him so much: his irreverence, his wit, his infectious laughter, his passion for and knowledge of the game he loved, the world game—the game he did so much to do promote to the magnificent heights of shared passion among his fellow Australians.
I am so pleased that the New South Wales government has offered him and his family a state funeral. Bill Shorten, in calling for a state funeral last week, said:
Les is a national icon who did so much to grow the world game and to champion multicultural Australia. He deserves nothing less than the full symphony of tribute and respect.
My love and condolences go out to his family and friends. My thoughts are with you all. He was, I know, so important to you, such an important part of your lives, and you all know that he was an important part of this nation's life. Not just the football community but the whole nation mourns his passing. Goodbye Lesomundo, my friend. Thank you for all you have done for football and for the people you have informed, delighted, entertained and loved over a wonderful life. Vale Les Murray.
Murray Darling Medical School
Mr GEE (Calare) (13:47): There is a chronic shortage of doctors in rural Australia. The cold, hard truth is that, despite well-intentioned efforts, the current system of medical training has not been able to bridge this particular divide between city and country. The Murray Darling Medical School aims to fix this problem by training doctors in the bush for practice in the bush.
Vested interests in this debate abound. The largest vested interest seems to lie with the big urban universities who continue to oppose the new medical school. In what I would describe as a spectacular public relations own goal, one of those universities, that being Sydney, recently took out full-page advertisements in our local newspapers to voice its opposition. I'd like to thank that university not only for shining a spotlight on the nature of the vested interest at stake but also for taking public support for the proposal to new heights. My office has since been inundated with support for the Murray Darling Medical School from doctors, nurses, members of parliament, religious and community leaders and people from all walks of life who have simply emailed in, urging us to keep going.
The Murray Darling Medical School recently appointed Professor John Dwyer AO as its Foundation Professor of Medicine and Surgery and Professor Richard Hays as its planning dean. Both are eminent Australians and leaders in their fields.
Country communities are tired of inequality between the city and the bush. The public support for this new medical school is overwhelming. The time for the Murray Darling Medical School has come.
Marriage
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:48): Like many Australians, I am shocked at the government's utterly mad decision to spend $122 million on a non-compulsory, non-binding, potentially illegal, postal opinion poll about marriage equality rather than letting us parliamentarians do what we were elected to do, and that is vote on this issue. Last night I threw the question to my Facebook followers and asked them, 'What would you rather see done with $122 million?' and, wow, my post was filled with funding suggestions that put the coalition policy team to shame.
Lyn Kemp would use the money for rehabilitation centres for young people with disabilities so they don't have to live in nursing homes. Danielle Pope wants more funding for breakfast programs and dental health for schoolkids. Karen Matthews wants to employ more people at Centrelink so that it doesn't take months for an aged pension to be processed. Catherine Haslock wants the money spent on domestic violence supports. Gayle Grapentin, Deborah Clarke and Jenny Cuthbertson want more homes for the homeless, and Jenny's 14-year-old wants to see the National Broadband Network improved. Paul Cochrane suggested spending $60 million on research funding for breast and prostrate cancers, with the remaining $62 million donated to the Liberal Party to help develop proper policies because, clearly, they have none.
I want to remind the House that $122 million could fund 1,906 teachers, 2.75 million bulk-billed GP visits and the 1800RESPECT domestic violence hotline service for the next decade. All this proves once again my Facebook followers would make better national leaders— (Time expired)
Moore Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:50): I thank the Prime Minister for opening the six-kilometre extension of the Mitchell freeway to Hester Avenue last week. This landmark is the culmination of years of work by the local community and the team of construction workers. I thank all those involved.
Whilst the new freeway has provided a much-needed boost to our northern coastal suburbs, there is more work to be done. Given the lead time required in delivering a significant infrastructure project, we must not rest on our laurels. Due to the projected residential growth, the next six-kilometre stage of the freeway extension, to Romeo Road in Carabooda, needs to be planned for, designed and constructed in the next term of government. In addition, the railway extension from Butler Station to Yanchep is critical for the development of the north metropolitan area. These two transport infrastructure projects will directly benefit Moore by facilitating the movement of commuters between the rapidly growing northern coastal suburbs and our regional City of Joondalup, the catalyst for economic development and employment growth. I strongly make the case in parliament for federal funding for the next stage of the freeway extension to Romeo Road, Carabooda, and for the railway extension from Butler Station to Yanchep.
Western Sydney: Roads
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:51): Having lived in Western Sydney since I was a kid, I've learned that this is true: you pay a high price for living on the edge of an urban fringe. You face the prospect that governments will massively underinvest in infrastructure that counts. You are squeezed out there because you cannot compete for homes that are close to schools, hospitals, roads and public transport. And then, if you have the temerity to ask for a roadway, you only get it if there is a massive thumping big toll bucket put on the end of it, and you then have these private toll operators bleed you dry, as they are doing in Western Sydney. I represent constituents who pay 40 bucks a day for the privilege of travelling on a toll road. What we're seeing is that these private toll operators have become the modern-day version of robber barons. They are not happy with the profit they're making. Transurban yesterday announced a profit leap of 850 per cent. Their profit leapt 850 per cent. Their share price went down because the investors said they didn't make enough money.
On top of that, you look at the revenue that's coming in on the M7. In a climate where inflation has hardly got a pulse to it, revenue's up 17 per cent, and the CEO said, after my constituents pay 40 bucks a day, that two-thirds spend 20 bucks or less each month on tolls. This bloke does not live on this planet. He's on a different planet, and he should not be robbing Western Sydney residents.
Defence Procurement
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (13:53): Last week I was delighted to join my Victorian federal coalition colleagues the member for Menzies, Senator James Paterson and Senator Jane Hume for the very exciting announcement that BAE Systems Australia has selected Victoria as its LAND 400 headquarters. This is an incredibly important contract for Victoria—$5 billion for the LAND 400 phase 2 tender. There is no better place to manufacture vehicles in Australia than in Victoria. It's estimated LAND 400 will create more than 2,000 direct and indirect jobs. Whether it's firepower or the protection offered to soldiers, BAE, on its face, is offering the superior vehicle. Critically, unlike its competitor Rheinmetall, 90 per cent of the BAE vehicle will be manufactured locally, which reflects a wonderful commitment to Victorian manufacturing.
The fight does not stop here. One of BAE's principal partners is Marand, and I'm very hopeful that Marand will place its 60 jobs manufacturing the hull for the vehicle in Geelong, where it currently has some other very important defence operations. I look forward to working with my Victorian colleagues to fight for this very important project across the political divide. There is no better place than Victoria to place this contract. We have the skilled workforce, the advanced manufacturing expertise and the Defence site—a supply chain unmatched anywhere else in Australia.
Johnson, Mr John Richard 'Johno', KSCG
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:55): I pay tribute to my good mate and stalwart of the Labor Party, John 'Johno' Johnson, who passed away overnight. They simply do not make them like Johno anymore. He was a man of faith, family, Labor and the community. A stalwart of the Labor Party and the Maroubra community, he was a mentor to many. Johno actually took me to my first ever Maroubra Labor Party branch meeting in 1984. He served our party in the New South Wales parliament as President of the Legislative Council from 1978 to 1991. He was Treasurer of the Labor Party, Director of the Prince of Wales Hospital, a board member of the Cancer Council, chair of the Catholic Newspaper Company, a fellow of Warrane College at the University of New South Wales and was a director of the Randwick Club.
He lived for Labor and all it stood for. He literally raised millions of dollars for our party, not through donations but through raffles, selling everything from dishing liquid all the way up to family holidays. At school, at Marist Brothers Pagewood, when I was a student there, there was always Johno running the chocolate raffle and selling his father Mac's heavenly puddings, often even when they were out of date. He was a stalwart of the Catholic church in Sydney, which rewarded him a couple of years ago when he was awarded a papal knighthood in the order of St Gregory the Great by Archbishop Anthony Fisher. If I ever get to heaven, there is no doubt that Johno will be there ensuring that the rules are stipulated—no more redraws for raffles.
Rest in peace, great mate Johno Johnson. I offer my condolences to Pauline, his many children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Invictus Games
Mr HOGAN (Page) (13:56): The Invictus Games—invictus is Latin for unconquered—is the international sporting event for wounded and injured servicemen and women. The 2017 Invictus Games are being held in Canada next month, and I am very proud to inform the House that there are three members of my community representing our country. Twenty-one year old Lismore man Nathan Parker was a trainee pilot with the Air Force when he lost his arm after a bus carrying 50 academy personnel rolled over, injuring 30. Nathan had a prosthetic arm fitted last year. Nathan set himself two goals: to fly again and to represent his country in the Invictus Games. Last year, he returned to the air and he will fulfil his second goal next month when he represents Australia.
Thirty-four year-old Jamie Tanner from Lismore is a former infantry soldier. He served our country proudly in East Timor and Iraq, and completed two tours in Afghanistan before he was discharged in 2011. He has numerous musculoskeletal injuries and, like many returned servicemen and women, suffers from post traumatic stress disorder. He says his greatest achievement in life so far was recognising he needed help to manage his PTSD.
Sean Lawler, from Nana Glen, is also competing in his second in Victoria Games. Sean joined the Army in 2004 as a rifleman but suffered an injury in training. He was deployed three times in Afghanistan, Iraq and Timor Leste. Gentleman, we are proud of you and good luck.
Skilled Migration Program
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (13:58): I rise to draw attention to the House the ongoing abuse of temporary work visas in the meat industry, in particular, section 457 visas. Because of this abuse, Australian workers find they have reduced hours with reduced rates of pay as companies are engaging workers on 457 or 186 visas. The meat workers union raised the case of Paul Wilson from Wingham with me. Paul was demoted from his duties only to be replaced with a section 457 visa holder. Because of this unjust action, Paul is suffering considerable financial hardship. The union has written to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection about Paul's case, and I trust he will have his department investigate and provide a thorough response
This is incredibly unconscionable that companies are able to abuse the system, and that Australian workers and their families are suffering because of it. I have also been advised that, because of the ongoing cattle shortage, there is a very significant surplus of skilled, qualified meatworkers who cannot gain full-time employment. There is no need for companies in the meat industry to source foreign labour when there are Aussie workers desperate for work. Australian workers deserve better and they are being let down by this government, in particular the member for Lyne, who is nowhere to be seen, and the Prime Minister, who, on 457 visas is all talk, like he is on every other issue that matters to Australians.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Cuthbert, Ms Elizabeth Alyse (Betty), AM, MBE
The SPEAKER (14:00): The Prime Minister, on indulgence.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:00): I rise to acknowledge the death on 6 August of Betty Cuthbert, an extraordinary Australian and a legendary sportswoman. I place on record the House's appreciation of her extraordinary contributions on and off the track.
Betty Cuthbert was born to run. Her remarkable ability as a sprinter was first noticed when she was 13 by the Parramatta home science teacher June Ferguson. Just five years later, after first being recognised by a very observant teacher, she sprinted her way into Australian sporting history, winning three gold medals at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, the first Australian to achieve such a feat. She went on to set 16 world records in individual and relay events before finishing her spectacular athletics career as the holder of four gold medals and with the title of 'Australia's golden girl'. To this day, Betty Cuthbert remains the only athlete in Olympic history to earn gold medals in the 100-, 200- and 400-metre sprint. She retired from athletics after the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and returned to work in her family's plant nursery.
Tragically, she developed multiple sclerosis over the following decade. For such a gifted athlete to be struck down by an illness that progressively robbed her of her mobility was incredibly cruel. But she was pragmatic, fiercely independent and strong in faith. She had such a strong faith. She saw this tragic misfortune as an opportunity to raise awareness about multiple sclerosis, and so began her quest, her commitment, to raise awareness about MS and the need for better treatment, better research, better care. She dedicated much of her time to visiting schools, talking about both her Olympic achievements and the impact of multiple sclerosis.
Her strength of spirit and dedication to others—her love for others—was inspiring. It earnt her the award of Member of the Order of Australia for her services to sport and to the community, and recognition as a tireless advocate and a role model for a new generation of Australians.
For many of us, the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games will be remembered for its opening ceremony and the moment when Australia's greatest sportswoman handed over the baton and the hope of the nation to Cathy Freeman. Perhaps the most poignant moment was when the Olympic torch-bearer Betty Cuthbert began her journey around the Olympic track, pushed in her wheelchair by her long-time friend Raelene Boyle, the look of joy on Betty's face reminding us all that she would never be defined by her illness.
Betty Cuthbert was a wonderful human being. She had a very, very deep faith. Humble, gracious, down-to-earth, she took pleasure in the company and conversation of good friends. We pay tribute to this remarkable woman and her exceptional contribution to Australia. To all of Betty's loved ones, friends, family and community, I offer today, on behalf of our parliament and our people, our most sincere condolences.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, on indulgence.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): I thank the Prime Minister for his words. In the last 48 hours we have seen a lot of that glorious, grainy footage of the 'Friendly Games', the 1956 Olympics. It is a glimpse of an Australia that many of us perhaps had forgotten—men in hats, women in long dresses, everyone in their best for this sporting occasion. It is a snapshot of a simpler, more frugal, more optimistic time. Australians celebrated the Olympic ideal and the love of the game, and watched spellbound as a whip-thin 18-year-old with a shock of blonde hair—high knees propelling her down the cinder track, mouth stretched wide—hit the tape. There was the 100 metres, the 200 metres and then the anchor leg in one of Australia's finest Olympic moments.
I went on YouTube earlier today and watched that race. I listened to the call. It was a beautiful Melbourne day, not a cloud in the sky, not an empty seat in our long-demolished grandstands. Australia is in lane 3. Strickland out to Croker. Australia right on the heels of Great Britain. Croker to Meller, touch and go. Meller to Cuthbert, down the straight, a photo finish for gold and a new world record in the 4 x 100. A perfect end for the golden girls. Three gold medals for Betty, an athlete whom the press had barely mentioned in the lead-up to the games. She was a young woman so modest and so uncertain of whether she would make the Australian team that she actually purchased tickets to the games.
In an era when amateur status was fiercely enforced, this instant elevation to superstar brought no instant rewards, no material contracts on the new television. In fact, when Betty was voted ABC's Sportswoman of the Year and rewarded with a new cutlery set, she had to return it. A few weeks after she stood upon the dais to the cheers of a very proud nation, she was back pulling weeds out of her parents' nursery in Western Sydney. When injury and interrupted preparation cruelled Betty's defence of her titles at the Rome games, she retired at the age of 22. Then, as she always said, God told her to run again. She returned for the only perfect race she ever ran. A fourth gold medal, in the first ever women's 400 metres at Tokyo. Just to give you a sense of her achievement that day all those years ago, Betty's time in 1964 would have been fast enough to qualify her for the semi-finals in the world championships last week.
Five years after that perfect race, that display of unparalleled athletic control, Betty noticed she was breaking tea cups and having trouble applying lipstick. Her friends saw her stumble uncertainly at parties. A decade after Tokyo, she was formally diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. As the Prime Minister said, when the Olympics returned to Australia, Betty graced the track in a wheelchair—beaming, blinking back tears, as her friend Raelene Boyle pushed her and the Olympic torch around the stadium. Once again, the home crowd rose to urge her on. For someone who spoke with God often, Betty never asked why he'd given her this disease, because in her mind she knew the answer. She believed that God had given her MS to raise awareness for others, to help raise the money to find a cure.
Betty knew more than her share of hardship in later life. She lost her home to storms in 1993. She lost her modest savings to investment scams in 1998. In 2002, she suffered a brain haemorrhage. Yet her faith never wavered, nor did her compassion.
I heard a story yesterday that when a rugby league player from Western Sydney was diagnosed with cancer, Betty called to send him a cheque, which would have been a fraction of his income but all of hers. All her life Betty was loved by her doting parents, proud twin sister and dear companion and carer, Rhonda Gillam, who was there to hold her hand until the last. Rhonda alone knows just how much that would have meant to Betty and how much comfort it would have brought her. Farewell, Betty Cuthbert—forever a golden girl.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Murray, Mr Les James, AM
The SPEAKER (14:10): The Prime Minister, on indulgence.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:10): I rise to acknowledge the death on 31 July of Les Murray AM, the face of soccer broadcasting in Australia for a generation of fans. Les's contribution to soccer and sport more broadly was remarkable. On the outskirts of Budapest in the early 1950s, in a small village field, a young Laszlo Urge fell in love with the game of football. He was mesmerised by the geometry, the creativity and the purest essence of the game. In a country then ruled by a harsh, bleak, cruel and Stalinist regime, Laszlo saw his beloved game as a source of enormous joy and hope for his oppressed fellow countrymen.
The Urge family escaped Hungary and arrived in Australia as refugees in 1957. Laszlo would have many a heated argument with his school mates at Berkeley High School in Wollongong as he tried to persuade them that soccer was superior to rugby league—a challenging debate, I would have thought, in those days. This would have been an easier argument to have today perhaps. It was a tough debate in the 1950s and sixties. Later, he joked that he was rather angry that his father hadn't warned him before leaving Europe that there was a country in the world where soccer was not the No.1 diversion. He, therefore, considered himself a missionary of the game. After having his name mispronounced many a time, Laszlo Urge became Les Murray when he fronted Channel 10's national soccer league coverage in 1977.
It was a chance meeting in the corridors of SBS between the production consultant, Peter Skelton, and the part-time Hungarian subtitler, Les Murray, which gave him the perfect vehicle for his cause as the voice of the fledgling station's football commentary. It was said over his 30-year career Les, with his persuasive arguments and just a hint of his Hungarian heritage still evident in his dulcet tones, put an arm around us and drew us closer and gently lured Australians into the exotic world game. He often lamented that his late friend, fellow commentator and soulmate, Johnny Warren, was not alive to see the enormous popularity the game now enjoys—Australia's largest club-based participation sport, with more than one million Australians participating at club level, the A-League going from strength to strength, the Socceroos having qualified for the last three World Cups and the Matildas having reached the quarterfinals in the last three World Cups and last week taking out the Tournament of Nations.
The fact that Australians are speaking less about soccer and more about football is a testament to Mr Football's persuasiveness and achievements. In 2006 they were formally recognised when Les was appointed a member of the Order of Australia. We can safely say that Les Murray turned Australian hearts to football. To Maria, his daughters, Tania and Natalie, and their families and to all who knew and loved him, I offer the deepest sympathies of this parliament and our nation. Farewell, Les Murray. You were a true champion of the beautiful game.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:14): I thank the Prime Minister for his words then. Australians love their sport. We love the great sports commentators. The really great commentators—the ones most treasured—never sound like they are at work, do they? Not for a minute do they give you the impression that they are just someone turning up to do a job in a journeyman fashion. Instead, the really great sporting commentators impart that unbridled joy of being in the presence of what they love most in the world and being able to share it with others.
Les Murray was a really great commentator. His was a voice counting his blessings. He treated every minute, you sensed, as a gift and as a new opportunity to educate Australians about the superiority of what we always call 'the world game' even if, deep down, he knew it was 'the beautiful game'. House by house, broadcast by broadcast, immaculate pronunciation by immaculate pronunciation, he continued his unstinting fight against the use of the word 'soccer'. Les saw himself as a warrior for the underdog—for a game starved of attention, squeezed between other codes and unfairly tagged with stereotypes. Yet, in his lifetime, he lived to see the emergence of the A-League, the rise of the Matildas and, after so many years of disappointment and defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, the return of the Socceroos to the World Cup. It was at World Cup time that Les's star always shone brightest, when millions of us climbed on to the bandwagon, joining him and his great mate Johnny Warren, sharing in all their despair and delight.
Les's colleague and dear friend Craig Foster wrote last week about Les: 'Les always said that he put football on Australian television not to teach us about football, but to teach Australia about the world.' In fact, that's what Les did all his life, not just as a commentator and a champion for the round-ball game but also as a fearless, unstinting advocate of multicultural Australia. Les, who came to this country as Laszlo Urge, a refugee from communist Hungary, never forgot the courage of his parents, who took that leap of faith, or the generosity of the nation that took him and his family in. Like millions of others who have joined us as Australians by choice, Les Murray was a powerful proof that you can be equally proud of your heritage and of your new home and that love and loyalty of country could be shared without being divided.
Today we remember a pioneer, a patriot, a family man, an enthusiastic vocalist in the short-lived The Rubber Band, and a person never happier than when humbly serving the sport that he lived for. His memory and his legacy will live long. May he rest in peace.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:18): by leave—I move:
That further statements in relation to the deaths of Elizabeth Alyse (Betty) Cuthbert AM MBE and Les Murray AM be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Energy
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this government Australians are struggling with rising electricity and gas bills. Why is the Prime Minister wasting $122 million of taxpayers' money on a pointless and unnecessary postal plebiscite, when he could use that money to help fund this year's energy supplement for 334,000 pensioners?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting!
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:19): I thank the honourable member for his question. The government is delivering on its promise to give all Australians a say. At the same time, we are working to bring electricity prices down.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari is warned!
Mr TURNBULL: What has the Labor Party done?
They do not have a policy to create a job, to create a dollar of investment. It is the most left-wing anti-business Labor Party we have seen in generations. What is their plan for energy prices? Huge renewables targets, closing down base-load power, no plans for storage, no plans for anything. If you want to know what it would look like across Australia, South Australia is right there. They know. The South Australians in this chamber know very well what the consequence of Labor's reckless ideological approach to energy is. Just today we have met with the energy retailers, securing real action from them to ensure that Australian families will not be paying any more for their electricity than they need to. That is securing a better deal for millions of Australian families. That is going to have an impact in the here and now.
The Labor Party likes to talk about its vision for renewable energy. Well, in the here and now, we are going to build the largest renewable energy project in the Southern Hemisphere. That is the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House: ideology and politics; engineering and economics. The reality is we are getting on with the job of ensuring Australians have affordable and reliable power. The Labor Party has presided over a rise in energy prices driven by their recklessness. Whether it is in the gas market or in the electricity market it is Labor's failure to plan, Labor's addiction to ideology, that has created the pressures on Australian families that we are seeking to relieve not next year, not in 10 years, but right now. We are looking after Australian families today.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:22): I'd like to welcome a couple of special guests to question time today. Joining us in the gallery is the Hon. Lauren Moss MLA, Northern Territory Minister for Corporate and Information Services; Minister for Environment and Natural Resources; and Minister for Tourism and Culture. Also joining us is the Hon. Todd McClay, New Zealand Minister of Trade. We extend a warm welcome to you both.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Energy
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (14:22): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on the action the government is taking to reduce retail electricity prices for millions of Australians?
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr RAMSEY: You may well laugh, but I come from South Australia—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grey will resume his seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. I did not hear the second half of the member for Grey's question.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin is warned. The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I did not hear the second half of the question. The member for Grey will repeat his question.
Mr RAMSEY: My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on the action the government is taking to reduce retail electricity prices for millions of Australian households, including in my electorate of Grey?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:23): It says a lot about the opposition that, when a South Australian member asks about energy, they seek to drown him out with shouting. Their shame—the South Australian energy situation—is the worst in the nation and it has been created by Labor Party ideology and politics. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Energy and I met today with the major electricity retailers to ensure that we got a better deal for Australian families. What we know—
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
Mr Hammond interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Hotham is warned. The member for Perth will leave under 94(a). We are not going to do this every day. The Prime Minister has the call.
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
Mr TURNBULL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we know is that too many Australian households and businesses are paying more for their electricity than they need to. Because they are on discounted plans which have expired they have gone back onto standing offers and are paying far too much for their electricity. We're not talking about small amounts. The Australian Energy Market Commission has identified that the difference in the plans between what people should be paying and what they are paying can run into the hundreds of dollars a year—in some cases, up to $1,500 a year. As the Treasurer said in the press conference after the meeting, the best friends of the retailers are complexity and inertia, because consumers simply do not know what their rights are and what their opportunities are.
So we have secured real reforms to the electricity sector which will benefit families right now. We're ensuring that the electricity retailers will make their customers aware of the best deals that are available to them. In particular, if a customer is on a discounted plan—as many people are—which is coming to an end, retailers will have an obligation to advise that customer that their plan is coming to an end and what the consequence will be if it comes to an end without them going onto a new plan, if they go on to the standing offer. They will show what that would mean for the customer in terms of additional expenditure based on their last year's consumption.
This is going to involve a change to the regulations under the National Electricity Law. Because of their support for it, it can be done on an expedited basis and can be done in six weeks. Our commitment is to ensure that our consumers, families, households and businesses are well informed and that the retailers give them the information that enables them to ensure they have the best deal. This is action right now. It will mean families will be paying no more than they need to right now, remedying the mistakes made over so many years by Labor.
Marriage
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the $122 million he's wasting on his voluntary non-binding postal plebiscite could instead fund more than 1,800 residential aged-care places—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will resume her seat. The Leader of the House is warned. The Minister for Health will cease interjecting. The member for Sydney will start her question again.
Ms PLIBERSEK: My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the $122 million he's wasting on his voluntary non-binding postal plebiscite could instead fund more than 1,800 residential aged-care places, provide over 16,000 annual childcare rebates or support over 2.7 million bulk-billed GP visits? Why is the government wasting $122 million on a postal plebiscite that the Prime Minister has told his party they can ignore?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:27): The government is giving every Australian a say on the issue of marriage because we promised to do so at the election and we keep our promises.
Cost of Living
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:28): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on action the government is taking to put downward pressure on the cost of living for all Australians? How is the government taking practical action to ease the burden on family and business budgets?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:28): I thank the member for Swan, who, as both a successful small business person and a former electrician, understands well the impact on small business budgets and, indeed, family budgets when it comes to rising prices, whether it be electricity or other areas. The government understands that the flat incomes Australians have been dealing with now over some years put real pressure on those family budgets. That's why in this year's budget we announced that we were guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on, whether it be Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme or record funding for education, and that we're also acting to put downward pressure on rising prices for electricity and other essentials of life.
I announced in the budget the Prime Minister's five-point plan to put downward pressure on electricity prices. We are keeping our gas at home to ensure that it delivers on domestic needs. We are increasing the supply of energy through generation, storage and transmission. We are investing in low-emissions technologies. We are ensuring, as the energy minister has, that the regulatory system doesn't put pressure on prices going up but puts pressure on pushing prices down, such as abolishing the limited merits review initiative that he is taking forward. That is also about ensuring customers do not get taken for a ride by large energy companies when it comes to their power bills. Today we are giving the power back to families over their power bills.
We are giving power back to the consumer, because a real competitive market is a competitive market where customers have real power and tools and information. And the obligations that are being put on those energy companies as a result of the meeting we had today and the work that this government will continue to proceed with will ensure that millions of Australians will get a better deal on their energy bills and have the tools to do that. An important part of that is also empowering them with their own data to get a better deal. Whether it is getting a better deal out of your energy company, getting a better deal out of your telco or getting a better deal out of your bank, customers need to be in power to get the right prices and the right deals out of their market.
The Labor Party only has a policy to drive up electricity prices. The foolishness of their 50 per cent RET will just put more costs on business. It will shut business down, as the SA government has been shutting businesses down. In the same way as the Leader of the Opposition wants to tax Australians out of business, he wants to put prices on families that will drive them to the wall.
Marriage
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today, the member for Warringah warned Australians to vote no in the plebiscite, for reasons unrelated to marriage equality, claiming:
If you're worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote no, and if you don't like political correctness, vote no …
Last night, when asked about marriage equality, Bronwyn Bishop referred to polygamy, bestiality and the killing of children. How can the Prime Minister guarantee there will be respectful discussion, sticking to the issues, when his own Liberal colleagues behave like this?
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides will cease interjecting.
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Eden-Monaro will leave under 94(a).
The member for Eden-Monaro then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The member for Barker and the member for Hume are warned. The member for Gellibrand is warned. Members on both sides should pick up the cue here. The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Pyne: The Prime Minister was asked about the comments of individual members, even those who are no longer in the House. They are hardly within his areas of responsibility and, as a consequence, he should not be—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Lindsay is warned. I am not going to listen to points of order and be interjected over by members anywhere in the chamber, on either side. I am making that very clear. If members are warned and ejected, as I have said, it is their choice. I am not going to keep repeating this through question time. It is ridiculous. The Leader of the House will repeat his point of order.
Mr Pyne: The Prime Minister was asked a question about statements of members on the backbench in the House and even statements about former members of the parliament. Neither of these is within his area of responsibility as Prime Minister, and therefore he should not be required to answer that question.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I listened to the question very carefully. The preamble to the question referred to a member of this House and a former member of this House. The question itself was more general, and I am going to rule it in order. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:33): I have great confidence in the good sense of the Australian people. Are we seriously at the point where the Labor Party has so little confidence in Australians that they would shut down a right to vote because people have said things they find outrageous or unacceptable, or that are regarded as unacceptable by the vast majority of Australians?
In any debate there will be statements made which are offensive, which many will regard as extreme, which many will regard as wrong. In this debate I will be encouraging Australians to vote yes. Others will encourage them to vote no. I urge every participant in the debate to act with responsibility and with respect for those on the other side. How they act is a matter for them; and they will be judged by Australians, as will their arguments.
If we are seriously at the point where the Labor Party is saying you cannot have a vote on this issue in particular because people will say outrageous things then how could we have a referendum on any of the issues that have been discussed? How could you have a parliamentary election? 'You can't have a parliamentary election,' they'll be saying next, 'because who knows? Some candidate will say something outrageous or someone will say something outrageous, unfair, cruel and wrong about a candidate.' Australians can see through all of that.
The Labor Party is disrespecting and underestimating the wisdom of the Australian people. We put our faith in them. We will give every Australian a say on this issue as we promised them in the election. The Labor Party could have voted today to enable a compulsory attendance ballot. They have refused to do that because they don't trust the Australian people. We will give everyone a vote.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney is warned.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is an important reform, and in principle I support budget measures to better fund it. However, my constituents tell me the scheme has many problems. For instance, they talk about an impenetrable and impersonal bureaucracy, as well as hopeless delays with internal reviews, which leads to unnecessary distress and frustration for families. If ever there was a government program that had to be user friendly, this is it. So what will you do to better respond to community concerns? What will you do to ensure the NDIS works effectively for all people with disabilities and for their families?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Social Services) (14:37): I thank the member for Denison for his question. There are general and specific answers to your question. The general answer is with respect to what has become known inside the NDIA as the pathways review. It is a very thorough, own-motion-initiated review started by the new NDIA board into the experience of all participants and has been conducted and concluded. That involved consultations in the hundreds with stakeholders and individual participants. The more specific answer is that, if there is ever any individual case where you think there has been bureaucratic excess, a problem or a delay, you are very welcome to come to my office and explain it to me. That applies to any member here; and many members see me from time to time. I extend this invitation meaningfully to you, because that will allow us not only to assist the individual but also to feed that experience in a confidential way back into what is an ongoing effort to improve performance and experiences.
As reported at the end of the last quarter, we have moved 78,000 participants into the NDIS. That represents about 82 per cent of the original bilateral estimates, which were very ambitious, as has been noted in many quarters. Initially, problems were experienced with the payment portal. In the first several weeks after we went to full transition, the payment success rate was hovering around 70 per cent. It has now moved up to a much better 93 per cent. The number of participants we have moved in Tasmania represents 97 per cent of the bilateral estimates, so we are actually doing better than the national average in Tasmania. The number of participants who have responded to us and described their pathway as participants as either good or very good is, as noted in the last quarterly report, 90 per cent. That's a good figure, but I am not pretending there are not people who have not experienced that highly consistent level of performance that we would want through the pathway.
I would just extend to the member again the genuine invitation to come and speak with me about individual cases that he might have encountered that can help us continually improve. I would also reaffirm the fact that the NDIA board and the NDIA executive—and there is a new CEO of the NDIA now—are absolutely committed to understanding difficulties that are arising, and, where there are 90 per cent of people in Tasmania saying that their experience is good or very good, we acknowledge there is 10 per cent room for significant improvement. Perhaps we could have a talk about that, but in an overarching way we are very live to issues and problems and are working very hard to improve the experience for all participants.
Agriculture Industry
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (14:40): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline how the government is securing the future of agricultural production in Australia, including in my electorate of Dawson? Is he aware of any threats to the ongoing viability of the agricultural sector and the thousands of hardworking Australians it employs?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (14:40): I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge the hard work that he has done, especially with the sugar industry and especially in support of the sugar code, making sure that people get a fair return back through the farm gate.
Of course, one of the greatest concerns that the member for Dawson has, and which he has conveyed to me, is what has happened to the price of electricity in Queensland. The price of electricity in Queensland for a tonne of sugarcane back in 2012 was $4 and today it is $15—the electricity costs. For a tonne of sugar, back in 2012 it was $35 and today it is $135.
What this shows, of course, is the Labor Party policy—the insane process in Queensland—where a state that has 6.4 per cent renewable power now has a policy to go to 50 per cent renewable power. If you want to know about the Labor Party policy, it is quite clear if you want to see what it looks like: Labor Party policy looks like South Australia. It looks like South Australia, and in South Australia we have seen the complete chaos that happened when people were caught in lifts, when they had to stop operations mid-way through, when the traffic lights went off and when the tuna fishermen lost their catch. This is all a sign of the chaos of Labor Party policy on power.
Most importantly, what we see in South Australia is the dearest power in Australia. That is what they have managed to deliver. That is Labor Party policy. We note that the power prices are predominantly driven by the policies of state governments and that state governments are supposed to be driving what is happening in the power market.
But now we have the Labor Party at a federal level also endorsing that policy. So we have the absurd position where a nation which is the largest exporter of seaborne coal and which will soon be the largest exporter of gas, which is the largest venue for uranium resource in the world and which has huge solar and wind power, is now—under these Labor Party states—having the highest power costs in the OECD. This is what Labor Party policy looks like.
The Australian people who live in the weatherboard-and-irons are fearful of the Australian Labor Party and what they are doing to their cost of living, their standard of living and their jobs, because the Labor Party have an aversion not only to the Galilee Basin—they don't believe in coalminers either—but even to saying anything to do with coal-fired power. They won't say it. The member for Maribyrnong won't go to the dispatch box and mean it.
There is a huge division in the Labor Party because they do not believe in labourers anymore. That is the biggest thing about the Labor Party: the Labor Party no longer believes in labourers. The member for Hunter and the member for Shortland are impotent to stand up for workers on their side of the political fence—to stand up for people and to drive an agenda which will bring back the standard of living and protect those most vulnerable. This side stands up for those who are vulnerable. We are going to help those— (Time expired)
Energy
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (14:43): My question is to the Prime Minister. According to analysis by National Seniors, increasing power prices, combined with this government's plan to cut the energy supplement to new pensioners, will mean that pensioners in New South Wales will be around $600 a year worse off. Why is the Prime Minister cutting the energy supplement, when it will make it harder for pensioners to stay warm this winter?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:44): Some of the people who are most vulnerable and most in need of the protections that we have secured for them today with the energy retailers are indeed pensioners. As you know, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, St Vincents and the Grattan Institute have observed that far too many people—older people in particular, pensioners, and people on lower incomes—are paying standard offers for electricity because they are not aware of, and have not taken advantage of, lower discounted plans. This is the point that we have been addressing with the energy retailers today. The critically important thing is to ensure that those customers are protected, and that will be done by ensuring that it will become part of the law—the regulations under the national electricity law—that, if they are on an outdated or expired plan or a plan that is about to expire, they have to be made fully aware of what the consequences of that are and the opportunities to get a better deal and therefore pay less for their electricity. That's going to particularly benefit the people that you're referring to.
As to the general protections in the electricity market, can I say to the honourable member that the most important thing is to ensure that Australians right now are not paying any more for electricity than they need to pay. We have many reforms underway. Bringing down the price of gas—there has already been some progress there. We're stopping the network owners from gaming the system and appealing against the regulators' reviews and getting higher prices for their poles and wires.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat—so is the member for Hunter, and now the member for Isaacs is too. The Manager of Opposition Business might explain to the member for Isaacs the roles that both he and the Leader of the House have. The member for Jagajaga on a point of order?
Ms Macklin: On relevance, Mr Speaker. The question is: why is the Prime Minister cutting the energy supplement?
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr TURNBULL: I can simply say that the opposition banked that saving in their own election campaign. They took it on. They banked it. The important point is that what we have done today is to secure important reforms that will benefit all Australian families, but it will in particular benefit the families, pensioners, people on lower incomes and older Australians who number far too prominently among those who are paying standard offers because they are not aware of the ability to get a better deal. We want no Australian family to be paying any more than they need to for their electricity, and we have taken the important steps today to do that. That is not something the Labor Party has ever advocated or done— (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:48): Before I call the member for Banks, I would also like to inform the House that we have just had join us in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon a visiting delegation from the Republic of Korea. On behalf of all members, I extend a very warm welcome.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Energy
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on what the government is doing to put downward pressure on energy bills? What obstacles stand in the way of delivering reliable and affordable energy to hardworking Australian businesses and families?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Minister for the Environment and Energy) (14:48): I thank the member for Banks for his question. I acknowledge his deep concern about the impact that rising electricity prices are having on people in his electorate. He understands that there's no single silver bullet for lowering electricity prices, and that's why the Turnbull government is taking action on a number of fronts: ensuring that there is more gas for domestic users; reining in the power of the networks to prevent them from gaming the system; investing in the newest technology and innovation, like Snowy Hydro 2.0; and ensuring that the cop on the beat, the ACCC, is keeping a firm hand on the margins in the retail sector.
Today's meeting was another step forward, because the Prime Minister was able to secure significant and substantive reforms. We will now ensure that there is better information provided to households and consumers. From now on, the electricity companies will be required to tell customers when they have come off a discount and the impact that will have when they go onto a higher priced system. We are now ensuring that you can compare the information, because we know that the biggest discount doesn't necessarily mean the best deal. We also know that the lowest income households, those on hardship programs, will not lose their discount or their benefits as a result of a nonpayment.
I am asked: are there any obstacles to this approach? We know that those opposite, when it came to their time in government, were asleep at the wheel, because the Labor Party gave us that dreaded carbon tax. The Labor Party gave us 'cash for clunkers'. The Labor Party gave us the citizens' assembly. What was most punishing for households, families, pensioners and businesses was that the Labor Party gave us, on their watch, more than a 100 per cent increase in power prices. Now they want to take the big experiment in South Australia national. The member for Port Adelaide should know better, because the cost to his own state has been enormous in terms of jobs, confidence and investment, and in terms of that State's standing throughout the rest of the country. We have taken decisive, concrete action on a number of fronts, and that is going to see lower prices for Australian households and families, thanks to the work of the Turnbull government.
Energy
Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. The CEO of Energy Consumers Australia said this morning: 'There is a real issue of governments coming together and implementing the Finkel report—all 50 recommendations. That is work that has to be completed to really settle this sector down for consumers.' When will the Prime Minister stand up to members in his party room and implement a clean energy target, as recommended by the Finkel review?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:52): Measure after measure has been taken by my government to address the energy mess left us by the Labor Party. We have been left with a shocking failure of policy by the Labor Party. What about gas? Let's think about this for a minute. The largest driver of electricity prices going up at the moment is the price of gas on the east coast. A federal Labor government and a Queensland state Labor government, together, allowed a massive export facility to be built at Gladstone without any regard for the consequences for the domestic market. The consequences of that has been that the domestic market was short of gas because the exporters were taking gas out of the domestic market to fulfil their export contracts. The consequence was, because gas is the marginal fuel source in the electricity market, a massive increase in electricity prices. It has put manufacturing businesses, which require gas as a feedstock or for heating, at risk. What we have done is taken strong action to limit exports; that is already seeing a reduction in the spot price of gas. The only reason we had to do that is because of the complete mindlessness, stupidity and complacency on the part of the Labor Party. What were they thinking? Well, I will tell you: they weren't thinking at all. That is the whole problem with the Labor Party. They do not plan. It is all ideology and politics—no economics, no engineering. That's how the honourable member's state got into the challenges it now faces with the most expensive and the least reliable energy in Australia. I have to say to the honourable member: the last group of people we will take lectures from on energy policy are the South Australian Labor Party. They've created the highest electricity prices and the least reliable electricity in the OECD. What an outstanding achievement for Labor ideology!
North Korea
Mr ANDREWS ( Menzies ) ( 14:5 5 ): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the house on recent developments on the Korean Peninsula?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:55): I thank the member for Menzies for his question. Reports that North Korea has acquired the ability to develop a miniaturised nuclear device which could be placed on an intercontinental ballistic missile are deeply unsettling. We need to be clear that responsibility for the tension and instability arising from the Korean Peninsula lies at the feet of the regime in Pyongyang, whose actions contravene international laws and pose a serious threat to global peace, security and stability and the rules based order that we seek to promote and advocate.
North Korea has been in flagrant violation of six United Nations Security Council resolutions going back to 2006, which condemn its multiple missile launches and five nuclear tests, including an intercontinental ballistic missile test on 28 July. The country has a chequered history of making and breaking promises to wind back its illegal programs. Since taking power in December 2011, Kim Jong-un has accelerated the development of these programs.
If a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile is capable of reaching the United States, such a weapon is capable of reaching Australia, and it poses an unacceptable existential threat to our country. Australia's policy with respect to this challenge remains clear and consistent. Presently, North Korea is defiant. However, Pyongyang is deterrable if the international community is determined and resolute. The collective way forward is for all countries to fully implement the UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea. This includes Security Council resolution 2371, passed unanimously four days ago, which is the toughest and most comprehensive package of sanctions against Pyongyang to date. All nations, particularly those with a diplomatic or economic relationship with North Korea, must use their leverage to place pressure on Pyongyang to change North Korea's calculations. All nations, and critically the permanent five, must defend the authority of the UN Security Council. Australia is constantly reviewing and extending our autonomous sanctions regime to complement and augment Security Council sanctions and has so far designated 37 people and 31 entities.
The best prospect for stability on the Korean Peninsula and peaceful resolution to this challenge is for Pyongyang to abandon its illegal programs. This is also the best prospect for North Korea's impoverished people.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:58): Briefly, I would like to associate the opposition with the remarks of the foreign minister. The opposition too recognises that the actions of the North Korean government are deeply destabilising. Whilst the development of shorter range missiles is more advanced than their longer range missiles, the opposition does not underestimate at all the seriousness of the threat that was outlined by the foreign minister. We are supportive of the approach and foreign policy in terms of the Korean Peninsula and North Korea outlined by the government. Labor does not regard the challenges of the Korean Peninsula as someone else's problem to be dealt with somewhere else. This is indeed a challenge to Australian stability and security.
Donations to Political Parties
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:59): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the government's responsibility for the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Victorian Liberal leader Matthew Guy is engulfed in a scandal for dining with alleged Mafia boss Tony Madafferi, who police say is guilty of drug trafficking, extortion and murder. It's reported the Victorian Liberals conspired to split Mr Madafferi's political donations into smaller amounts to avoid disclosure under federal electoral law. Has the government asked the Australian Federal Police to investigate whether any criminal offences have been committed under Commonwealth law?
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen is warned.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:59): I thank the honourable member for his question. I can assure the honourable member that those reports will be carefully examined by federal authorities.
Workplace Relations
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important that employer and employee organisations always act in the best interests of their members? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:00): I thank the member for his question. Right now, the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 is being debated in the Senate, as we speak—right now, in the Senate.
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr PYNE: Before you comment on the speck in your brother's eye, you take the log out of your own, Manager of Opposition Business. Right now, you could actually vote in favour of the corrupting benefits legislation in the Senate, which you are opposing and about which the Leader of the Opposition said on 20 September 2015:
It doesn't matter if the criminality is from a union rep or it is a pin stripe suit-wearing director in a boardroom of Australia. For us, we have zero tolerance.
If Labor really has zero tolerance of corrupt behaviour, whether it is by employers or union officials, it could vote right now to pass the corrupting benefits legislation in the Senate and in doing so send a very strong signal to the union movement and employers that it does have zero tolerance. But what we know is that the Leader of the Opposition talks a big game in Canberra and is a mouse when it comes to Trades Hall. He talks big and he acts small. Once again we have to recognise that this man has no backbone when it comes to dealing with the union movement.
The Heydon royal commission uncovered quite a number of sophisticated networks of corrupting benefits: Thiess John Holland, $300,000 to the Victorian AWU; ACI Operations, $500,000; Cleanevent, $75,000; Unibilt gave $32,000 to the Leader of the Opposition's own campaign in 2007; Chiquita Mushrooms, $24,000; and Winslow Constructors, $200,000—all to the Australian Workers' Union Victorian branch, which happens to be the union that the Leader of the Opposition was the secretary of and the national president of. There was a sophisticated network of corrupting benefits that Commissioner Heydon said were simply the tip of the iceberg.
The Leader of the Opposition could finally show some spine when it comes to dealing with the CFMEU. He could finally act like a true Labor leader, like John Cain when he was the Premier of Victoria or like Bob Hawke when he was the Prime Minister of Australia, both of whom ensured that the BLF was deregistered by the federal and Victorian governments. But the problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he is compromised by his relationship with the CFMEU. The CFMEU is in every single forum of the Victorian Labor Party. It's given $10 million to the Labor Party—$3 million since he was the Leader of the Opposition. It's time for the Labor Party to stop being so weak, to show some strength and to actually support the corrupting benefits legislation.
Donations to Political Parties
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the previous answer concerning Victorian Liberal leader Matthew Guy, who is engulfed in a scandal for dining with alleged Mafia boss Tony Madafferi. Has the Prime Minister done the same, and were donations covered by the Commonwealth Electoral Act received?
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Prime Minister—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, members will cease interjecting—I am listening very closely to these questions. No, the Leader of the House will resume his seat. I'm going to go first, if that's okay. The question went to two parts referring to the previous answer. One was whether the Prime Minister had ever dined with a certain person, and the other whether political donations had been received. On the last part, the Prime Minister has absolutely no responsibility, and that is clearly out of order—and I've ruled on that before when the member for Isaacs has asked similar questions. On the first part of the question, what the member for Isaacs needs to be able to do is relate that to the Prime Minister's responsibilities, and I think it was sufficiently general that it doesn't do that. So, on this occasion, I am going to rule the question out of order. The member for Isaacs can, if he wishes to, come back next time. I think it's best if we move to the next question now.
National Security
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (15:05): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to strengthen Australia's national security arrangements? Why are reforms necessary to combat new and evolving threats?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:05): I thank the honourable member for his question and thank him very much for the work he does in his local community, particularly around working with groups that are determined to see crime dealt with in his local community, and supporting many groups within his community to that end. It's a great tribute to him.
The first charge of the government—in fact, of any government—is to make sure that we, as best we can, protect our public and to make sure that we do all that we can to provide support to our agencies to make sure that they can stare down the threats of terrorism, organised crime and cybercrime, and we as a government do that. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the first charge of the government is to fulfil that duty, and we are doing it.
But we know that you can't do that if you can't first secure your borders. We know that, when Mr Rudd became Prime Minister of this country and the current Leader of the Opposition was sitting at the cabinet table, successive decisions were made which resulted in thousands of people coming by boat—in fact, 50,000 people on 800 boats. Twelve hundred people, tragically, drowned at sea. Thousands of children went into detention. Since our government was elected, we have made sure that we have kept the boats stopped. Why would Labor have allowed themselves into the position where, when John Howard left office, there were only four people in government—sorry! It wasn't that bad an election in 2007! I came close myself, but it wasn't that bad. There were four people in detention, including no children—no children at all.
When the Left of the Labor Party overtook the leadership within the Labor Party, we saw what happened with public policy. We are seeing it again in relation to national security as well, where the Left of the Labor Party cannot be put back into their boxes, as they should be, by a Leader of the Opposition who is too weak to do so. Most Australians know this Leader of the Opposition is duplicitous at best. They know that he's a con artist and—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. He will withdraw on two occasions. Can I just say, before I call the minister back to the dispatch box, that I do reflect on these matters, and there were a couple of occasions yesterday where I should have pulled him up and I didn't, where I have before on a number of occasions for those sorts of references to members. He will withdraw.
Mr DUTTON: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. I'm happy to do so. The Australian public know this about the Leader of the Opposition: he has one thing to say to one audience and something different to say to another audience. That is why he cannot be trusted when it comes to border security—because he is telling the Left of his party one thing and the Australian public something very different. We know that Labor went to the last election with a policy which would have resulted in boats recommencing, people drowning at sea and kids going back into detention. We know that, in relation to national security, the Left of the Labor Party is completely out of control, and we saw that yesterday with a tweet from the member for Lindsay, who quickly deleted it after she was contacted by the Leader of the Opposition's office. But has he been strong enough to come out and condemn it? No, he hasn't.
Banking and Financial Services
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister say yesterday that, if a royal commission into the banks went ahead, AUSTRAC's legal action against the Commonwealth Bank would have to be postponed, when there's actually nothing to prevent a royal commission and related court cases going ahead at the same time? Shouldn't the Prime Minister know this from the HIH royal commission, which he's very familiar with and which took place at the same time as a senior company executive was prosecuted in court? When will the Prime Minister stop making up excuses to stop a royal commission into the banks?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (15:09): I thank the honourable member for his question. The most important priority is for AUSTRAC to prosecute its case. These are civil penalty cases. The honourable member is challenging an opinion I gave on what the right relationship between an inquiry and a court case may be. I won't embark on a debate about that, but let us focus on the real issue, which is that AUSTRAC, our regulator, has done a very good job in identifying this alleged wrongdoing. It is taking action and it's getting on with it. The reality is this: the Labor Party talks on and on about a banking royal commission. Fair enough. And the Leader of the Opposition says, 'The Prime Minister wants to give the banks a tax cut.' I do not think he would be saying that very loudly at the moment. So, he says, 'The Prime Minister wants to give them a tax cut and we'—the Labor Party—'want to give them a royal commission,' on the basis that that is a terrible thing to have to happen to you.
Let me be clear about this: if you look, one after the other, at the likely recommendations a royal commission would make after an inquiry into the banks, we are taking action on them. What are we doing? We are sorting out the proper complaints mechanism. We are sorting out issues of governance. We are taking tough action right across the board on accountability and responsibility. So the fact is we are dealing with these failures of the banks, which we acknowledge. We are dealing with them right now in the here and now with real action that will get people justice right now. That's the focus. Our focus is not on slogans but on action. We want action, and that is what our measures are doing.
Dr Chalmers: By the banks, of the banks and for the banks.
Mr TURNBULL: If the honourable member doubts me, he should go and ask a few bank executives how they feel about the changes we are making to senior executives' accountability. I can tell you they're not very happy about that. They're not very worried about a royal commission. What they're concerned about is the real action we are taking in the here and now.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides!
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon is warned!
Illicit Drugs
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (15:12): My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on recent achievements in the fight against drugs and organised crime? What actions are our law enforcement agencies taking to keep our communities safe from the threats associated with illicit drugs?
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism) (15:13): I thank the member for Groom for his question and the interest he takes in law enforcement matters. Yesterday was a very historic day for Australian law enforcement as they commenced the conclusion of an operation that is one of the most significant take-downs of organised criminal syndicates in Australia in several decades. The Australian Federal Police and its partners have destroyed two separate international crime syndicates, operating in Australia, Dubai and the Netherlands, resulting in 17 arrests and the seizure of 1.9 tonnes of drugs destined for Australian streets. This is a massive blow to the drug trade in Australia and against the organised criminal syndicates that peddle in this misery.
I can update the House that nine men and one woman were arrested in Sydney yesterday morning, while five men were arrested in the United Arab Emirates by the Dubai police antinarcotics department in simultaneous operations. We will now facilitate the extradition of those suspects from overseas to bring them back to Australia to face justice. The AFP investigation—they worked in conjunction with the New South Wales Police Force—began over a year ago and targeted organised criminal groups dealing in both drugs and illicit tobacco. It's estimated that if the total drugs that were captured had reached Australian streets, they would have had a street value of over $810 million. These operations should serve as a very strong reminder that nobody in Australia is above the law. The efforts of the Australian Federal Police and our law enforcement partners demonstrate our vigilance and our effectiveness in cracking down on those who profit from the illegal drug trade in Australia.
This comes on top of news last week that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, working very closely with French authorities, seized 1.4 tonnes of cocaine destined for Australian shores. This is the largest seizure of cocaine destined for Australia in history. It's also on the back of our efforts working with China's National Narcotics Control Commission on a joint task force called Taskforce Blaze, based in Guangzhou, that has stopped an extraordinary 13 tonnes of drugs from coming to Australia which would have had a street value of literally billions and billions of dollars.
In Australia we have a significant drug problem. We have very high demand for illegal drugs. We have a huge appetite for illegal drugs in Australia. We also pay very high prices. And this creates a honeypot effect for organised criminal gangs from all around the globe—North America, South America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Organised criminal syndicates want a slice of the Australian drug market, but these latest operations show that we will work with our law enforcement agencies to give them the tools to arrest the people that peddle in this misery.
Mr Turnbull: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:16): 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
Murray-Darling Basin
The SPEAKER (15:16): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Watson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to preserve the integrity of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
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 BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:17): Ordinarily, at the end of an MPI, after question time, we get to the end of this debate and just move on to other legislation. Unusually, today, shortly after this MPI finishes, the parliament will have to vote on the exact issue that we will have been debating today. In the Senate, they will be dealing with a motion on whether there should be a judicial inquiry to deal with the allegations which appeared originally on the Four Corners program into water theft and corruption in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin system. If that motion is carried in the Senate, notwithstanding government members voting against it there, when that Senate resolution seeks concurrence every member of this House will have to vote on this issue today. So for those members who say one thing in their electorates in South Australia and a different thing when they come here to Canberra, there will be nowhere to hide in terms of people knowing whether they stand up for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its ethical implementation or whether they are willing to accept the rorts which we saw in that program.
That program made clear that what we saw in that program was not representative of most irrigation districts. I suspect it's not even representative of what happens in that particular district itself. What we saw was extraordinary. What we saw on the Four Corners program was not, as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources described it, like cattle-rustling. We saw a billion litres of water which was pumped down the rivers for the health of the basin—environmental water owned by the Commonwealth taxpayer—being pumped back into the dams of cotton farmers. That's not just ripping off the Australian taxpayer; that's ripping off every irrigator who does the right thing. Anyone who watched the Four Corners program would have seen irrigators themselves being outraged by the rorts that they were seeing.
There are members of parliament here from irrigation districts. They know how angry people were when they saw that program. They know how angry the law-abiding irrigators were when they saw those sorts of rorts. Those members will have to vote on this later today. Think of what sort of community we are talking about. This is the same part of north-western NSW where kids get locked up for shoplifting and where you've got an incarceration rate for young Aboriginal kids that's way off the charts. And yet you see people gloating about being able to potentially steal a billion litres of water.
When allegations like that are made, you need to have a thorough process to be able to get to the bottom of it, and the problem here is that neither a state process on its own nor a federal one is able to do it. The reason we support a judicial inquiry through the COAG process is that there is no other way of being able to get to the bottom of what's happened. New South Wales ICAC are dealing with these allegations, but the moment they hit federal officials there's nothing they can do, because they've only got jurisdiction in New South Wales.
I wrote to the Commonwealth Auditor-General. To their credit, the National Audit Office have decided to undertake an investigation into what's happening, but the moment they hit the state jurisdiction their powers will hit a wall. The minister when these allegations first came out said, 'It's just a matter for the states.' The whole reason we have as national law—mind you, the law itself that underpins the plan was introduced under the Howard government with the man who is now Prime Minister as water minister. Back then I thought we'd got over the threshold that the Murray-Darling Basin would be viewed as a national issue. You can't just say it's a state issue. It might not always happen when too much water gets pumped, but most of the time the water manages to flow across state boundaries. When it flows across state boundaries, people downstream have a right to know that the rules are being kept to. People in irrigation districts, in Victoria, in the southern basin, in New South Wales and in South Australia have a right to know the rules are being kept to.
After saying it was just a matter for the states, feeling a bit of pressure, the Deputy Prime Minister said, 'Well, maybe it's not just for the states, but I still don't want a serious inquiry,' so he got the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to look into it. But the problem with that inquiry is this: they cannot compel witnesses to appear. They cannot provide any immunity or protection for whistleblowers. They cannot subpoena documents. They don't have the powers to be able to get to the bottom of this, but a judicial inquiry through COAG can, and today we will vote on whether or not a judicial inquiry should take place. And be in no doubt: if this House votes no, it will be a decision for those members, particularly those in irrigation districts where people keep to the rules, that they want to turn a blind eye. I don't see how anybody can be proud of their irrigation district and be proud that their people keep to the rules and be willing to say that we're not going to vote for a serious investigation with the powers that we need to deal with the water theft on one of the instances. One of them is of a billion litres of water pumped straight out of the river after the taxpayer has been spending $13 billion to improve the health of the rivers.
We have had for some years now an opportunity for a genuine bipartisan approach to the Murray-Darling Basin. When we had the vote in this parliament, all the members of the Liberal Party voted with the members of the government and most of the members of the National Party voted with us. A couple of the independents, the Green Party and a couple of the National Party members voted against it. We had a massive majority of people committed to delivering a Murray-Darling Basin Plan. But be in no doubt: the plan rests on the integrity of the water market. If the integrity of the water market is not going to be defended by this parliament then it really doesn't matter how much water you set aside for environmental use if you then allow a situation where the environmental water gets pumped straight back up into cotton dams. It doesn't matter how much commitment you make to the good work of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the science-based approach and the improved consultation with communities on their work—consultation which is still not good enough, but it's improving. And the consultation is getting better. But what's the point in doing all of that if we're going to allow a situation where one state government gets rid of and guts so many of their compliance officers, doesn't allow their compliance officers to properly pursue investigations—in fact, gets rid of them immediately after they raise these allegations—and sees situations of a billion litres of water being pumped straight back into a cotton dam?
The parliament today makes a really simple decision. The Senate will go first and then it will come to us. This is not like we've got a little coalition just falling over the line in the Senate. It's not often you go all the way from Senator Bernardi to Senator Hanson-Young—that doesn't happen all that often—but the situation that we have is that everyone except the government members, and maybe a couple of others, will be saying that we need to have a proper inquiry with all the powers. It will come here and people will have to vote. If you care about the health of the rivers, if you care about the Lower Lakes, if you care about the Coorong, if you care about the health of the system, if you want to make sure that the next drought doesn't look like what the last one did, then you've got to make sure there's integrity to the water market. If you care about your irrigation districts, if you believe that the people in your irrigation districts are the ones who keep to the law, then you owe it to them to make sure there is compliance in northern NSW. If you believe what happened in northern NSW was done by a few people who aren't representative of the whole group, then have the sort of compliance for them that we have for shoplifters. We can't have a situation where this parliament will claim to be tough on crime unless the crime involves a wealthy irrigator; where we'll protect taxpayers' money unless it's a plebiscite; where we'll protect taxpayers' money unless it's water dedicated to this reform. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to end what was intractable for a century. We should not miss this opportunity, and we will vote today.
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (15:26): I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. The Australian government is committed to delivering the Basin Plan in full, on time and to achieve the best possible outcomes for basin communities. In fact, the Basin Plan is on track to do exactly that. This ability to deliver on time and in full was reaffirmed at the 9 August COAG meeting, when first ministers of basin states endorsed the implementation plan.
The plan provides a credible pathway towards securing the triple bottom line outcomes of the Basin Plan and paves the way for collaborative implementation by all basin governments. A key step in the Basin Plan implementation was taken in June this year, with all basin ministers agreeing the final package of sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism and projects, which is expected to fully offset the remaining water recovery gap in the southern basin. At the suggestion of the South Australian minister, Ernst & Young has been appointed to undertake an independent analysis on efficiency measure programs, consistent with the Basin Plan legal requirement to achieve neutral or improved socioeconomic outcomes. Ernst & Young will draw on an expert panel to assist with the analysis, and will report to basin water ministers by December this year. Progress has also been made on settling the Northern basin review, with basin water ministers agreeing in principle to implement new projects in June this year, including the protection of environmental flows. A significant step towards delivering the Basin Plan was also achieved with the accreditation of the Warrego water resources plan. This is the first of 36 water resource plans, to be delivered under the Basin Plan, which will ensure the long-term management of water resources to achieve the enduring bottom line outcomes that we desire.
The Australian government takes allegations of water theft and the water management of the Barwon-Darling Basin very seriously. Irrigators and communities all want to have confidence that the rules that govern water use in the Murray-Darling Basin are being followed. They also need to have confidence in the authorities that implement and administer the rules across the basin. It is vitally important to note that no allegations have been tested. They remain just that: allegations.
I welcome the action that has been taken by the New South Wales government to launch an independent investigation, led by Ken Matthews AO, into the allegations made on Four Cornersless than 24 hours after the Four Corners program was aired. Ken Matthews is a highly respected Commonwealth public servant and former chair and chief executive officer of the National Water Commission. Mr Matthews will be assisted by three expert investigators with experience in both police and ICAC investigations. Mr Matthews's team has been granted full access to departmental documents and systems and has been authorised by the secretary of the NSW Department of Industry to interview any departmental staff required. Submissions from the public will be invited to Mr Matthews's investigation, and a secure email address and phone number have been established for this purpose.
The allegations in the Four Corners report have also been referred to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, an organisation with extensive powers of investigation. I believe there is no member in this House who would consider the powers of the New South Wales ICAC as inadequate to investigate or intervene with regard to the Four Corners allegations. In particular, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the extensive coercive powers of ICAC. It has the powers of a standing royal commission. These include the power to compel the production of documents and other information, the power to compel a public authority or public official to provide information, the power to enter properties occupied by a public authority or public official to inspect and copy documents, the power to obtain search warrants for properties, the power to use surveillance devices and intercept phone calls and the power to compel witnesses to answer questions at compulsory private hearings and public authorities. The member for Watson and members opposite will be fully aware of the powers of ICAC. With some of their comrades, Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald, having incurred the wrath of ICAC, they would be aware of ICAC's powers. It is entirely appropriate that the New South Wales government has launched these investigations into matters that directly relate to allegations of breaches of New South Wales state law. It is illogical to argue that state authorities are incapable of investigating and, if necessary, taking to prosecution any breaches of their own state laws. It is illogical.
Allegations of water theft and corruption in the administration of the Barwon-Darling is clearly such a case. In addition to investigations being undertaken in New South Wales specifically into the Barwon-Darling the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and assistant minister Ruston have jointly announced that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will conduct an independent basin-wide review into compliance with state based regulations governing water use.
The Australian National Audit Office is also undertaking an audit into the effectiveness of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in monitoring and payment arrangements under National Partnership Agreements. In view of the extensive reviews and investigations underway, there is no justification for the Commonwealth to initiate a judicial review or royal commission. A judicial review or royal commission would likely take from nine to 12 months, cost millions of dollars and require the cooperation of the New South Wales government and, potentially, other basin states.
I would like to put into context the scale of the allegations being made in the context of the wider Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I can inform the House that the Murray-Darling Basin long-term annual inflows are some 32,553 gigalitres. Average annual flows at the barrages are some 7,218 gigalitres. Total licensed extraction from the Barwon-Darling system, prior to the introduction of the cap in 2006, was 534 gigalitres. The Barwon-Darling basin—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HARTSUYKER: You should listen; you might learn something. The Barwon-Darling Basin diversion limit is some 198 gigalitres, and the total local water recovery required under the Basin Plan 2012 is six gigalitres. The total Commonwealth and state water recovery in the Barwon-Darling, as at 30 June 2017, is 32.6 gigalitres; the Barwon-Darling current take for consumptive use is 165.4 gigalitres; and the Barwon-Darling unregulated access A-class licences are 10 gigalitres—10 gigalitres out of a total flow of 32,553 gigalitres. So we can say that the allegations raised in Four Corners relate only to the A-class licences in the Barwon-Darling, which account for some 10 gigalitres out of a total of 32,000 gigalitres.
We on this side of the House understand the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to all the people of the basin states. We understand that water and access to water is the lifeblood of basin communities, both economically and socially and environmentally. We understand that the success of the plan and water holders' rights are dependent on the enforcement of that plan. The investigations already underway are an appropriate response to the allegations that have been aired on Four Corners. I certainly commend the calibre of Mr Matthews and his team in resolving this issue. It's vitally important that any issue of water threat be appropriately investigated. The New South Wales government is acting appropriately, the federal government has acted appropriately, and I certainly believe that it has been a totally appropriate response.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:36): It was hard to follow the previous speaker's arguments in his speech, but what I think he was saying was this is not a big deal. Stealing water from the Murray-Darling that was meant to go to the environment, that the taxpayer paid for but that instead was allegedly stolen to go to irrigators is not a big deal! It's only a small issue! It's a side issue! Well, I have news for the previous speaker: this is a serious issue. On this side of the House, we take this seriously: ruining confidence in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a plan that the member for Watson worked so hard in delivering, working hard with stakeholders and with people all around this country to deliver a once-in-a-century agreement. It is very important for South Australia and very important for confidence. To say that alleged illegal activity is not a big thing is outrageous.
But we shouldn't be surprised, because this has been the attitude of the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not in this chamber. When confronted by these serious allegations, he first said, 'Look, this isn't a big issue; it's just a localised issue.' Of course, we know that two nights later he went to the pub, and the truth came out. He said about the Four Corners report:
A couple of nights ago on Four Corners, you know what that's all about? It’s about them trying to take more water off you, trying to create a calamity.
That is the attitude and that is the truth of what this Deputy Prime Minister thinks—the Deputy Prime Minister that is in charge of the Water portfolio. He sees the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the alleged theft of water as part of that plan as just a conspiracy theory to take water off irrigators.
Quite frankly, we know that this Deputy Prime Minister cannot be trusted with the Water portfolio. I've had that view for some time. When he did the dirty deal for Malcolm Turnbull to become Prime Minister, Barnaby demanded Water.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The member for Kingston will refer to members by their total.
Ms RISHWORTH: Okay. When the dirty deal was done between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to take the Water portfolio and ensure that it went out of the Environment and into Agriculture, I was deeply concerned. Some people felt I might have been overreacting and that indeed the Deputy Prime Minister might make a good water minister.
Late last year, we got our first sign that he wanted to walk away from the plan. In fact, in a letter to the minister for the environment and water, the South Australian minister, he made it very, very clear that he did not believe that the extra 450 gigalitres that were to be delivered on top of the plan would ever be delivered. Did he have any discussion with his state colleagues? No. Did he discuss this with the parliament? No. No, this is his own belief that we could not deliver the plan. So that was our first indication that this Deputy Prime Minister was walking away from the plan.
Of course, we also heard in the pub what his true intention was in getting hold of the water portfolio. His true intention was, 'We have taken water,' and I assume that is the National Party, 'to put it back into agriculture so we look after you.' There you go, in his own words, he does not care about restoring the Murray-Darling river to health.
What this Deputy Prime Minister forgets is that downstream it is not just South Australian residents in Adelaide that rely on the Murray, it is irrigating communities down in South Australia as well. If I could give some advice to the Deputy Prime Minister: there is a reason why the National Party is floundering in South Australia, and there is a reason why, when National Party members are elected to the state parliament, they join a Labor cabinet. That is because the federal National Party doesn't care about South Australia. They don't care about the Adelaide residents, they don't care about the environment of South Australia and they certainly don't care about the irrigators of South Australia. If they did, they would stick to the plan—a plan that took a lot of hard effort. The member for Watson does recognise the former Prime Minister John Howard but I want to recognise the member for Watson, who did the hard yards to deliver this plan. We will not stand by while the Deputy Prime Minister tries to walk away from this plan. It is too important. (Time expired)
Ms LEY (Farrer) (15:41): In amongst the towering hysteria from the opposition spokesperson for water, the member for Kingston, in listening to this broadcast one would be forgiven for asking: where is it all coming from? What's happened? Have there been some extraordinary systemic developments in the corridors of power in Canberra?
There has actually been one Four Corners program. I do not blame Four Corners, because they are the media and they do what they do—as we know. What I do blame is the Labor Party, because they are no friends of rural Australia. They are no friends of the farmer and they are no friends of the irrigator. I have to start with one positive for the member for Watson: their limp defence of irrigators. What about your irrigation communities?
Mr Keogh interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Burt is warned!
Ms LEY: But we know you don't care and that you never cared. We remember when you came into our irrigation communities in 2009, outside the Murray Darling Basin Plan, and you launched the biggest buyback. You talk about northern New South Wales: what about Toorallie Station? What about the extraordinary amount of Commonwealth money that was spent there? I suggest you go and have a look. What will you see? Nothing. Feral animals, no fences, irrigation communities who once depended on that water and local government areas with families and communities completely let down by the actions of previous Labor governments.
I want to make it very clear that where something has been done wrong, it should be corrected. No question. The Deputy Prime Minister said that; every one of my colleagues would say that. Every one of my colleagues would acknowledge that if you break the rules you pay the penalty. But the federal government doesn't run the rivers in New South Wales. We don't do the measuring. We don't do the metering. What about the constitution? Constitutional responsibility has five governments sitting around the table at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council because the states have not given their responsibility to the Commonwealth. We do not control what they do. We work with them in partnership.
This is a political stunt based on a Four Corners program. Nobody on this side of the House has forgotten how Four Corners closed down the pastoral industry in northern Australia and broke the hearts of so many. No-one has forgotten that. I'm not blaming Four Corners, I'm blaming the Labor Party, because it was Julia Gillard, a previous Labor Prime Minister, who took that action. And the member for Watson is not out there in the basin talking to our communities—the member for Murray, the member for Mallee or any of us. He is not talking to us. What he is doing, is that he is sitting in his office. He is making statements like, 'The entire reform is in jeopardy; it's a game changer'. He has even launched on his web site an e-petition: 'Save the Murray-Darling Basin Plan'!
I know he is an intelligent person and I know that he actually realises this has nothing to do with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It's on foot, it's underway and it's happening. This has to do with the possible breaking of rules in a local irrigation system in New South Wales, entirely controlled by the state of New South Wales, with an entirely appropriate response by the New South Wales minister within 24 hours. But what is Labor doing? They are sitting there creating political scares. They never leave their electorates or this building to try and represent rural Australia. It's a shame. A party that claims its roots are under the Dig Tree in Barcaldine and in the shearing sheds of Western Queensland, a party that once said it had a connection with the rural heart, soul and spirit of this country, has completely lost it. What you really need to do, member for Watson, is step out of inner Sydney and come and talk to the irrigators I represent—which you once used to do. They didn't think you are a bad fellow; they thought you were a lot better than your predecessor. But they will not forgive you for what you did. And they also recognise the truth in what we are seeing here right now—that you have confected motions in the Senate, hysteria in the House and a whole lot of nonsense around one program of untested allegations which will be sorted out, confirmed and evaluated, which has had all the appropriate action taken.
If you cared about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, you would give some confidence to that plan today. You would give some confidence to the irrigators that we represent and say to them that we understand that the plan is in all our interests, so we're here doing the hard yards; we're out there working. Reform is difficult. We've got those states around the table. We've got the ministerial council to agree to the sustainable diversion limit projects. We're moving to the next stage. There's really good valuable work done. In one of the remarks that one of your members made you could have noted that, you could have recognised that; and you could have supported farmers, rural Australia and irrigated agriculture, which contributes $15 billion to this country every year. A third of all the agricultural production in Australia is from irrigated agriculture. (Time expired)
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (15:47): Let me put the importance of this issue in context. The Murray-Darling Basin sustains over two million Australians. It accounts for 14 per cent of Australia's landmass, nearly 20 per cent of our agricultural land, and a third of the nation's food supply. It contains about 40 per cent of all-Australian farms and 65 per cent of all irrigated farms. It's home to over 30,000 wetlands and around 50 Indigenous nations and their burial grounds. That's how important it is. It has all been put at risk by a handful of greedy irrigators and a minister who is not committed to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and never was.
South Australians flagged their concerns about the future of the Basin Plan the day the Deputy Prime Minister was handed the water portfolio. Their fears have been validated not only by the Deputy Prime Minister's comments at Shepparton but also because he walked away from the additional 450 gigalitres intended for the Murray-Darling Basin and committed to by this side of politics.
The Basin Plan was agreed on in 2012 and was intended to end 100 years of bickering among the individual states. The importance of the Basin Plan came to a head in 2008 after a decade of drought which highlighted the environmental, social and economic risks to Australia if the basin continued to be mismanaged. Those risks include whole communities being destroyed, farming families going broke, families being torn apart and, sadly, even lives being lost.
As a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia that inquired into the Basin Plan at the end of the drought, I saw firsthand the devastation and heard the personal hardship stories as the committee travelled across the basin. In just the last two weeks, I was in the basin area talking to farmers about their needs. The committee's report was largely adopted. The member for Watson, who sits here today and spoke earlier, brought all of the parties together, after 100 years. Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, the ACT and the federal government all came together to sign off on a plan; finally, there was a plan. But what was exposed by the Four Corners program were both allegations of serious criminal activity and either complicity in those activities or incompetence on the part of the government of the day in New South Wales or of government officials.
Basin water, during a time of water shortage, sells for around $3,000 a megalitre. You can work out for yourself just how much is stolen when a gigalitre of water is taken. It is big dollars. Even worse, what matters is that the downstream farmers are the ones who will be hit the hardest, because, when there is less water in the river system, their allocations are lowered, so their productivity is lowered, their income is lowered and their livelihood is threatened.
The response by the Deputy Prime Minister that the New South Wales authorities and National Audit Office are investigating the matter is grossly inadequate, as the member for Watson has, quite rightly, pointed out. Each of the six parties to the Basin Plan has a stake in the basin, and the basin waters in New South Wales do not belong just to New South Wales. That's why a national judicial inquiry should be held. Only then will Australians know the full extent of the mismanagement of the basin and know about the people that should be held to account for that mismanagement and perhaps the alleged theft.
For South Australians, at a time when the state is bracing itself for the closure of Holden, a threat to the future livelihood of the Riverland growers because the Basin Plan is being undermined is the last thing South Australia needs. Of the four states, South Australia takes the least amount of water from the Murray, but the little that is taken is used very, very productively. Any attempt by this government to sweep away allegations of water theft will only add to the accusations that the Turnbull government is not committed to the Basin Plan, as the minister is not committed to it.
And why is the minister not in the chamber today to defend what are very serious allegations? He is not in the House today to defend them because, quite frankly, he has never been committed to this plan. As we heard from the minister who spoke on his behalf, it seems that the feeble excuse is that it was only a drop in the bucket—or words to that effect—and therefore it doesn't matter. If that's the approach that this government takes to the serious matter of theft, then God help the people of Australia. This is a serious matter, and only a judicial inquiry will get to the bottom of it.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (15:52): I think I'm now the member for Broad! So I've got a seat named after me. This discussion has been motivated by a Four Corners program. Let's just reflect on that, because there was once a government that had a kneejerk reaction to a Four Corners program. I was the leader of the Victorian Farmers Federation at the time, and I remember talking to agriculture minister Joe Ludwig, who, I think, wrongly got blamed. He was hung out to dry by Gillard, the Prime Minister at the time. So we are not going to have a kneejerk reaction to a Four Corners program. The first thing we can take from this discussion is that that is the difference that separates us from them. We are making decisions to govern the country; they are reacting to TV stories. That said, we need to think through the water issues.
I do have some sympathy for the member for Watson, the Manager of Opposition Business. I know: our love is united! But I watched you have to clean up the mess made by the worst water minister Australia ever saw, and that was Penny Wong—the worst water minister Australia ever saw. She destroyed confidence, she smashed the—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will refer to members of this House and the other one by their correct titles.
Mr BROAD: Senator Penny Wong destroyed the viability of our irrigation bodies and she ripped up irrigation agriculture. It has taken us five years to restore confidence. As VFF President I listened to the then environment and water minister—now the Manager of Opposition Business—copping all the flak. In some regards, he took a lot of heat out of the debate, and I commend him for that. He had to sit on his hands and listen to the venting of anger about the terrible management by the water minister before him. But I've got to say he probably sat on his hands a little bit too long; there are a few things I would have liked to have seen you deliver.
But they were delivered by Barnaby Joyce, who was shadow water minister and then became Minister for Agriculture in the new government. He delivered $103 million of irrigation infrastructure to give confidence back to the irrigators in my patch. He delivered tax deductibility status for people who wanted on-farm irrigation—so, drip tape irrigation. With Andrew Robb, he delivered the free trade agreements, and they also put a cap of 1,500 gigalitres of maximum buyback. We put confidence back into water, so I refuse to get lectured from the other side of the parliament about how to manage water. We have done stuff that actually has to happen.
There are things that need to take place. We have to have confidence in the irrigation industry. We have to have confidence in the environmental management. We have to have confidence in the community. Without those things, you cannot encourage people to put modern irrigation on their own farm. If they think their water's going to be taken away, they're not going to put new infrastructure in.
Confidence means there has to be integrity in metering. Confidence means there has to be monitoring of metering—they must be working. Confidence means that there has to be prosecution for those who aren't upholding their obligations under the law. The law does have a level of compliance around it. The New South Wales compliance regime is strict. There is currently an investigation, which I think is the appropriate current investigation, which is answerable to COAG, to come up with the conclusions about whether their regulation regime is being carried out.
But I am very reluctant to sit here as a local member and listen to the rhetoric from that side and think that I could support a judicial inquiry into this—because this is the bill that you're going to try and put to us, and then this is the thing you're going to try and roll out in our own media to say that we haven't done it. The reason for that—
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr BROAD: A good political game, I get it. But the reason for that is that the one thing that people must have at the moment is a confidence that the government has got this under control, that the COAG is working, that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan allows investment in agriculture and has a cap on water and that the water is not going to all be taken to downstream users in South Australia. So it disappoints me that many of your speakers on this debate are only South Australians.
There must be some more things done on the water market, which I think need to be addressed. We do need to remove speculators out of the water market. You must have a legitimate reason. In my mind, if you want to buy water, you must have a legitimate use for it. I think you should have to nominate an extraction point for when you purchase temporary water. I think that, at the heart of the basin, we should have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority sitting in Wentworth, where the Murray and Darling join, so that irrigators stand next to river operators while they watch their children play sport.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (15:57): Yes, South Australians have spoken on this side because we know how important this issue is. As South Australian MPs we understand full well the importance and seriousness of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is astonishing to sit here as a South Australian—and there are other South Australians on the other side of the House who will be judged on this issue. We saw the Murray Mouth only a few years ago—and the Murray Mouth is not far from Adelaide; it's only an hour's drive; I have relatives there, and I travel there regularly—and you could see dry sand, no water, dead fish and the environment crumbling before your eyes. That is what the sights were a few years ago when we had the drought. To hear the other side try and wash this away, say it's not a big issue and talk about this being a minor issue is astonishing.
As we heard the member for Watson say earlier, the integrity of the water market is essential to ensure that this plan works. The integrity of the water market is the No.1 issue that is of concern, because if you have no integrity in that water market—as we saw in the allegations on Four Corners, where water is being pumped up, taken out of the system and pumped further up—then the whole thing collapses. We need to get to the bottom of this, and the only way to do it is through a judicial inquiry.
It's okay for the government to hold a royal commission into unions for political reasons—and that's all it was—but not for such an important issue, which is not even a political issue! It goes across political divides. This is about the integrity of the river, the environment and the assurance that our fruit growers, people and industries on the river have enough water to survive. We are taking water out from one end and pumping it into the other end. The other end will do okay, but what happens to the people in South Australia, like those in the Riverland, where we depend on their grapes, on their fruit—on a whole bunch of things that we export?
What happens to the fisheries further down the river? What happens to those people? If there is no integrity—
Mr Pasin interjecting—
Mr GEORGANAS: The member for Barker may want to interject, but his community in the Riverland is dependent on a water market that is integral to them. They need to know, having given up water years ago when there were buybacks, that the integrity of this is 100 per cent, and the way to do it is through this judicial inquiry.
We're located at the end of the river system and therefore very heavily affected. We all cheered when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was agreed to by the basin governments in 2012, led by my colleague the then water and environment minister, the member for Watson. The plan ensured delivery of the environmental equivalent of returning those gigalitres to the basin. What we see now is a minister for water who not that long ago said that he did not agree with the 450 gigalitres going to the environment. This was an integral part of this Basin Plan. It was absolutely integral to it so that we have water when we have tough times, when we have droughts—and droughts will come again. That 450 gigalitres is integral to ensure that we keep the sustainability of the river going. It's not rocket science; it's pretty simple. So to have members try to wipe their hands of this and say, 'It's a state issue; we're not interested,' or leave it up to the states is so wrong.
In fact, even other countries are looking to copy the strategy that we have used on this plan. For example, in the United States, California, which has been facing its worst drought, has praised our measures and policies. It has praised the broad community involvement across the sectors and the clear, credible communication about the drought and the reasoning for the response that maximises public participation and support as much as possible. That means that people will have their say and they all agree.
Therefore, when we hear stories like the one we heard on Four Corners, where people are making allegations that the water was coming out and being pumped further up for cotton, it absolutely is unfair on everyone else that lives on that river or depends on that river for their livelihood and their industries from there downwards. South Australia certainly is at that bottom end.
I have to say that the way to fix it, if you really care about it and really are interested in ensuring that we have water integrity in this country, is through a judicial inquiry. Every member, as the member for Watson said, will have the opportunity in the coming days to vote on that. (Time expired)
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:02): The grandstanding on this issue has been herculean. The very people who killed river communities by going through industrial-size buybacks are the people that now want to lecture us about the health of river communities. Buybacks kill communities, and you know it.
What I will say is this. There's something I haven't said before, but I'll say it here. I don't often come to these things, but I'll concede that I, and indeed this nation, are the beneficiaries of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement that the member for Watson negotiated, and he deserves credit for it.
Like so many in the nation, I was appalled at the very serious allegations of theft and corruption in New South Wales raised by the program. But my background was in the criminal law, and an allegation is just that: an allegation. I'm adamant that these allegations must be fully investigated and resolved as quickly as possible, to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. But what we haven't heard in here yet is that there are currently four investigations and inquiries underway. The first is the New South Wales independent review led by Ken Matthews, announced on 26 July. I trust those opposite aren't casting any aspersions on Ken Matthews. The second is the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's review of compliance with the state-based regulations governing water use, announced by the Prime Minister on 30 July. The third is the Australian National Audit Office review into the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources' efforts in monitoring water use in New South Wales. And the fourth is referral to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, ICAC. The last of those has powers similar to a standing royal commission. We have seen premiers resign and former ministers jailed as a result of ICAC's activities. Nevertheless, should all these investigations failed to satisfactorily resolve the allegations, I'll be on the front line calling for more action.
Before I get off the topic about ICAC, as I'm from South Australia could I just point out that the New South Wales ICAC isn't like Jay Weatherill's version of an ICAC, where the investigations and the hearings are held in secret. The New South Wales ICAC will be an open and transparent process, and I congratulate it for that.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The member for Kingston has had her turn.
Mr PASIN: I'll go back to what I started with: the herculean grandstanding. I take my lead from very serious people in the Riverland. Take, for example, Gavin McMahon, who not only runs the Central Irrigation Trust but is also chair of the National Irrigators Council—he lives right down the bottom end of the river—and Chris Byrne, who heads up Riverland Wine. Do you know what they're saying to me? They've gone to print on this, as well. They're urging caution against the sort of hysterical overreaction we've seen from Labor. I'll add in others—Xenophon—who have said as much, noting that the Murray-Darling Basin is working and that we need to allow these authorities to undertake their investigations.
If those who live in Adelaide were so seriously concerned about the river, particularly those in the Labor Party, they'd help me with some things. They'd help me by building an interconnector between lakes Albert and Alexandrina.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr PASIN: No, I'm sorry, Jay Weatherill has to put the infrastructure request to us
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kingston is warned.
Mr PASIN: It's Ian Hunter who's running a million miles an hour. Before there's any feigned concern for the fishermen in the Coorong, why don't we get Jay to allow us to undertake a sustainable cull of the New Zealand fur seals that are driving these people to consider suicide. That's the point we're at.
There are plenty of people who want to talk about ripping another 450 gigalitres out of the Riverland, indeed, out of the basin. That means 32 gigalitres from the Riverland. You come with me and tell the people of Renmark their whole irrigation district can go. The final comment goes to the member for O'Connor, who made this point to me as we walked into the chamber: do you know what the people of the Riverland—because I've told him before—are really scared about? They're scared that there's plenty of water. They just can't afford to pump it because of what the South Australian government has done to electricity prices. That's what they're scared about. That's what keeps them up at night. Shame on you! (Time expired)
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:07): It took a drought and the imminent collapse of a national river system to force us to put aside our parochial state interests to create the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—a national plan; a national agreement. My parliamentary colleague Senator Nick Xenophon—in particular, but also others—is right, when he says that if there is any evidence of a state trying to sabotage this intergovernmental agreement and we fail to act decisively then it is an attack on what our federation stands for.
Back in November last year, when there was a suggestion of cuts to the environmental flows, there was such community anger that the Nick Xenophon Team had to stand up for downstream communities. We successfully advocated for measures that elevated the Basin Plan to the level of the Prime Minister and first ministers at COAG and then put the plan through the forensic scrutiny of Senate estimates. This was designed to provide additional transparency to ensure the Basin Plan would be delivered as promised. Although this was a step in the right direction, it is now clear that the level of transparency achieved through Senate estimates is simply not enough. We are convinced that the only way that the outcomes of the Basin Plan can be ensured is for the state and federal governments to open the books—the accounting and the modelling—for all to see. Only then will the Australian public, and particularly the communities along the river, have confidence in their governments that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will be truly delivered on time and in full.
The National Water Commission was originally given the mandate of being an independent auditor of Murray-Darling Basin water accounting and standards. The function of the commission was diminished and folded into the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. These water accounting and standard auditing functions, as they relate to the Basin Plan must once again be placed in the hands of an independent agency that sits outside of the control of the department and, indeed, the federal minister. Such independence must be accompanied by annual audits of expenditure of public funds and annual independent reviews of the Basin Plan progress.
But lastly, and critically, nothing less than a judicial inquiry with all the powers of a royal commission is needed to resolve the allegations of widespread rorting of water entitlements, water meter tampering, collusion of public servants, obstruction of water enforcement investigations, and alleged secret deals between government and large irrigators. This is theft. These are allegations that a billion litres of water that belongs to our nation, paid for by taxpayers, has been stolen. The communities in my own electorate at the very end of the river Murray feel angry and betrayed. Communities along the entire length of the River Murray have the right to ask: what is happening to our water? And they deserve an honest response. They have yet to receive that response. We need genuine transparency and accountability, so that if anyone is stealing from the Basin Plan, we can have the confidence they will be properly addressed. South Australian state Liberal parties are outraged and support the call for a full judicial inquiry. However, the silence from the South Australian federal Liberal colleagues of theirs has been deafening.
We have just heard from the member for Barker—the other South Australian in this chamber that should be representing local communities along the River Murray in South Australia—that he is appalled by the allegations and yet he does not support a judicial inquiry. How can that be? Again today, the member for Barker talked about long-nosed fur seals in the Coorong, which he did yesterday—interrupting me in my speech about the Coorong—but he refuses to say that he believes this should go to an inquiry with royal commission powers. How must South Australians at Waikerie, at Loxton, in the Coorong, at Mannum and at Murray Bridge feel to hear that their federal member will not support a judicial review? They must feel abandoned by their federal member and by their federal government. The people from Mayo and from the neighbouring electorate of Barker and elsewhere stop me in the streets and say, 'Please fight for the river. Do not give up on a judicial inquiry. Do not give up on us.' And we won't, because water rights in the river Murray can be traded but the river itself belongs to all Australians.
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (16:12): It's very clear in water policy within the Murray-Darling Basin that it's the Labor Party that have absolutely no credibility in this issue. When we are trying to find a balance between environmental outcomes and productive agriculture, it's the Labor Party that have no understanding of the balance. It's the Labor Party that have been unable to identify what are the environmental outcomes that they want to achieve? It's the Labor Party and their leadership that have said: we need an amount of water; we do not care where the water comes from; we just need an amount of water.
Some of the environmental outcomes that are listed in the plan are things those opposite like. They want to keep the Murray mouth open, which is something that is totally unnatural—naturally closed up and opened up and closed up and opened up with the rainfall.
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr DRUM: You come into my patch. Those opposite also want to keep Alexandrina and Albert fresh and other places. They are totally unnatural objectives that are in their environmental outcomes. Come into my patch and explain to the irrigators that have lost thousands of gigalitres. You are not welcome back, by the way, Mr Burke. The member for Watson is not welcome back.
Mr Burke: You just told me to come back. Are you arguing with me?
Mr DRUM: I would love you to come in. I was also at the hotel in Shepparton last week when the Deputy Prime Minister was there. Unfortunately the ABC report just happened to miss the first part of his address to the crowd, where he said that if you are stealing anything, you need to be dealt with by the full force of the law. He said that whether you're stealing sheep or you're stealing cattle, whether you're stealing petrol in drive-aways or you're stealing water, you need to be dealt with appropriately. But unfortunately the reporters just happened to leave that little bit out, and they happened to concentrate on the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to talk to the people about the quantum of water that we're actually dealing with here. As Minister Hartsuyker put this together, it's 32,000 gigalitres in the entire basin. There is 32,000 gigalitres in the entire basin; 7,000 actually rush over the barrages out to sea. We're talking about class A water in the Barwon area of 10 gigs. We're talking about allegations of less than one half of one gig.
We don't know whether those allegations are true or not, but here are the Labor Party grandstanding to their hearts' desire, and they're accusing us of having a lack of integrity. This is one of the greatest witch-hunts of all time. There is no integrity in the Labor Party when it comes to trying to find an accurate balance of environmental water and productive agricultural water. It simply doesn't come into the equation—don't worry!
Here we are being lectured about water in the Murray-Darling Basin by a member whose electorate is in the centre of Sydney. Everyone else in the basin who wants to talk about water comes from South Australia. They themselves are not prepared to give up one more drop of water. To them, to deliver 450 gigalitres of up water for this last-minute deal that was put into the Murray-Darling Basin—if it can be proven that there's not going to be any social or economic detriment to the communities or to the individuals; if you can prove all that. The Minister for Water and the River Murray from South Australia knows that he cannot deliver any more water. His issues are no different to those of the people in my electorate, and they know that they cannot deliver any. They're the ones that have sacrificed all the water so far. They're the ones that have made the sacrifices. The irrigators and whole communities have made the sacrifices so far to make the Murray-Darling Basin Plan get to the stage where it is nearly complete.
I think Senator Leyonhjelm had a good line. He had a fantastic description of South Australian members of parliament. To think that there's another 450 gigalitres of water just sitting out there that can be flushed down the river without any serious detriment, personal hardship or community hardship, you've got to be living somewhere like Sydney or Adelaide. I just want to make sure that there is ample confidence that the independent regulators of the basin are going to be doing their job. They're already prosecuting hundreds of people for suspected breaches, and they will continue to do that work.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The time for discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bill and informing the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments disagreed to by the House and has agreed to the amendments made by the House in their place.
Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) (16:18): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (16:20): Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, when I left off speaking earlier today on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, I had just reached the part of the bill which deals with the concept of a pledge of allegiance, and you will remember that I said, at the beginning of my remarks on this bill, that we already have that incorporated into the process of citizenship. But I know my time is short and so I just want to make two final remarks.
The first is this. The government says that this bill is about national security. Yet this bill deals with people that are already in Australia. They are permanent residents. They are already here. If the government is serious in saying that there is a national security issue to be dealt with in this bill, it is on their head that they have caused that problem already by letting those people into the country as permanent residents. If there is a problem, they need to deal with it straight away, right now, under their existing powers. It does not get dealt with under this bill. If there is a problem, it's already sitting there.
Finally, I want to say this. This morning I attended the ACU interfaith breakfast with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and many other members of this House and members and representatives of many faiths across this country. The Prime Minister said this, echoing remarks he has made in this place and many other places before:
We are the most successful multicultural society in the world. That there is no doubt.
… … …
And our immigration nation has come from every corner of the world and obviously from every faith. Now all of that diversity enriches us. …
Everybody's culture enriches everybody else's.
If it is the case—which I do not disagree with at all—that we are a successful multicultural nation, as I believe we are and as the Prime Minister says we are, and that has occurred under our citizenship laws and processes as they are now, that do not set an unrealistic barrier, that do not make people wait forever, that do not create a second class of residents that have no pathway to citizenship, then there is clearly nothing wrong and there is no need to make a change as this legislation proposes. We don't need this bill.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:22): Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, you know how proud I am to be an Australian. Australia is the best country in the world. And I know I say that all the time, but that's because it's 100 per cent true. I know from the people I speak to in my electorate that I am not alone in saying that national security, citizenship and increased opportunities for Australians are all big issues that go right to my call. Any challenge, any potential threat whatsoever, to the Australia I know and love ignites my defences and my passion spills over. I take a firm stance on protecting our nation and values because, when I think of how lucky we are in Australia, I know it's no accident. Generations of Australians have fought for our freedom, and some have paid the ultimate price.
I was fortunate to represent the Minister for Defence, Marise Payne, recently at the conclusion of Exercise Talisman Sabre on board the USS Ronald Reagan when it was in Brisbane recently. The ship was impressive and the troops even more so, and I was humbled to be with such fine men and women. I was proud to hear many times that day of the high regard in which our troops are held by our United States allies.
Sadly, we were tragically reminded of the dangers these people face, even in training, when an MV-22 Osprey aircraft crashed in the Shoalwater Bay training area near Rockhampton this week, killing three US marines. I am sure I speak for all of us when I say our thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the colleagues and families of those involved.
When our troops put their lives on the line, day in, day out, the least we can do is to come in to back them—to join them in their dedication and commitment to protecting Australia and Australians as a priority. And that's what we're doing with this bill, the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It bolsters our approach to border protection and to counterterrorism, and it preserves the Australia we know and love for generations to come. The measures contained in the bill form part of the coalition government's response to the final report, Australian citizenship: your right, your responsibility, of the National Consultation on Citizenship conducted by Senator the Hon. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and the Hon. Philip Ruddock in 2015. The national consultation on citizenship teased out some important issues and highlighted the extent to which the community values Australian citizenship. It demonstrated that Australians view citizenship in a much deeper sense than just what it offers in the way of formal privileges. The consultation showed the community sees Australian citizenship as a privilege that extends to Australians a stake in our future as a prosperous and diverse nation and in the values that underpin this.
We want new Australians to get that, to understand how much it means to us, and we want it to mean just as much to them. The coalition government makes no apologies for refusing to be drawn into compromise. I'm not the least bit sorry for the tough stance we take when it comes to who we invite to become an Australian. It's a privilege, not a right. Citizenship is a vital institution, and the national consultation adds even more voices to reviews that consistently show there's a sense in the community that in some parts of the country it's undervalued. That is certainly what I hear in the electorate from my constituents and it's not good enough.
Australian citizenship involves a commitment to Australia, its people and our shared values, and so it should. Australian citizenship, as I said before, is a privilege. So I welcome this bill as a way to ensure that we protect Australia, its values and people and that our approach is consistent with community view of the people that I represent and that we represent in this place that we need to get tougher.
The bill strengthens the requirements to become an Australian citizen, amending the act to increase the general residence requirement to require citizenship by conferral applicants to have been a permanent resident for at least four years before they are eligible to apply for citizenship. It gives a proper length of time. This is something the Leader of the Opposition has said in the past he supports. It is another issue he backflips on.
The bill also requires that most applicants will need to provide evidence of competent English language proficiency before they can make a valid application for citizenship. In his own words, the Leader of the Opposition says:
I think it is reasonable to look for English language proficiency and I think it is reasonable to have some period of time before you become an Australian citizen.
And it's not just the Opposition Leader singing from our songbook. His colleague who has just walked out of the chamber, the member for Watson, Tony Burke, was once on the right path. He told the Daily Telegraph, 'We need stricter English language requirements.' That's what he said, straight from his mouth. When he asked why is it that no-one is asked on these forms to commit to respecting Australian values and abiding by Australian laws, the member for Watson himself was spot-on. He said former Prime Minister John Howard's focus on the need for people living in Australia to learn English was spot on. That was from the member for Watson.
I love it when we agree, but unfortunately now we hear the member for Watson in this place rubbishing all that. 'It's not important. The English test is too hard.' The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Watson have traded good sense for hypocrisy. They are here one minute saying this and the next minute, when it comes to voting on legislation, saying, 'No, we disagree now.' We see this on so many different issues, whether it's same-sex marriage, whether it's company tax cuts, whether it's workplace relations and the Fair Work Commission. 'Respect their independent advice,' he says. He changes his mind regularly. This guy is a flip-flopper, and the Australian people are awake to him, as the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection so often says in this place.
What the member for Watson failed to say in his speech today is: yes, we're a multicultural country, but our main language that we speak here is English, and to get a job here in this country you need to be able to speak English, write English and understand English. I just think the member for Watson is saying one thing when he's in front of a TV camera in parts of Australia, and then when he's back in his own electorate he's somehow saying to his own multicultural Australian residents and permanent residents, 'Oh, this is no good.' What he should be saying is, 'We embrace you just as the government does, but we want you to learn English and comprehend English and we want you to be efficient in this so you can get a job and integrate into society.' The people in my electorate believe this as well; they regularly talk to me about this. The bill introduces measures that the opposition leader has publicly supported and improvements in English proficiency requirements that the member for Watson himself called for previously.
The Turnbull government reforms will ensure we honour not only those that fought and fight for our nation but also those who call our country home, by protecting Australians and the values that they hold dear. Requiring aspiring citizens to demonstrate both an ability and a willingness to integrate is fair enough, but it goes further than that. We know that English proficiency assists opportunities for new Australians. There is a good bank of research that shows social and economic outcomes are assisted by a good grasp of the language of a country you call home. As a new Australian, being proficient in English is crucial to finding a job, building a new life, thriving and prospering, which is what we want, after all, for all Australians, including new Australians. If you listen to Labor's lies, you'd be forgiven for thinking we're closing the door, but it's just not the case. What we want is to be able to offer opportunity for those who require it, a fresh start and a warm welcome, extending to them the rights and responsibilities that Australians all hold.
Australian citizens have responsibilities to respect the rights and liberties of the Australian community, uphold and obey Australia's laws and serve on juries. In order to do so, it helps to speak English and understand it well. Citizens hold the right to vote, to serve our country in the Australian Public Service or the Defence Force and to run for public office. These are important positions of privilege and influence, and I want to know who is in them.
Since September 2014, 13 terrorist plots have been disrupted, and it has been almost three years since a successful people-smuggling venture has arrived. The member for Burt went on before about people already having arrived here and how it would be the government's fault. He failed to mention that 50,000 illegal arrivals came to this country under Labor. It is illegal to pay a people smuggler to come to this country by boat. Let's not forget that. And what did the Labor government do? They gave more permanent residency, with very few checks. Maybe the member for Burt should have mentioned that when he spoke before.
I just want to acknowledge that there have been many government ministers that have been involved with the three years of success in making sure that people smugglers aren't able to come to this country: the Treasurer, the current Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the justice minister and the Prime Minister. All of these people have done a good job in trying to make sure we maintain our Australian values and that we have sovereignty over who comes to this country. That's what residents that I represent want to make sure continues to happen. It is very important to them, and this strengthens it.
It's a shame that Labor isn't voting for this, by the sound of it. They should be, because this will help people better settle in here and it will make them be able to do that extra work in the four years that they're permanent residents before they become a citizen to be able to get that. Is that what the members opposite are saying, that four years is not enough time to be competent in English—to be able to speak it, to be able to write it, to be able to understand it?
Dr Aly: Do you know anything about English language testing?
Mr HOWARTH: I know that many people would do it and those opposite, including the member interjecting, are selling these Australians short. They are selling these Australians short, absolutely.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HOWARTH: Jeez, we've hit a nerve! Just vote for it then.
Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world, with people from a range of nationalities proud to call Australia home. I represent some of them in my electorate, and they all tell me the same thing: thank you for what you're doing on the sovereignty of our borders and for making sure that you're tough. The coalition government intends to keep it that way. Australians now come from nearly 200 countries, represent more than 300 ethnic ancestries, and one in four was born overseas. As of last year, nearly half of all Australians were either born overseas or had at least one parent who was born overseas. More than five million people have become citizens since Australian citizenship was introduced in 1949, and one of the highlights of being the member for Petrie is being able to welcome new Australians at citizenship ceremonies around my electorate. I've had the opportunity to speak at these and meet many people. I congratulate them and I welcome them with open arms.
As I said, the coalition government makes no apologies whatsoever for taking a tough stance on who we let into our country and why, and the Australian people expect us to do so. And, no, we won't make it easier. Why should we? As I said, I love this place. Australia is the best country in the world. No wonder everyone wants to move here. The opposition might be happy to leave the doors open to anyone who wishes to step through them, but the Australian people are not and I can tell you that it's not happening under our watch.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (16:37): These are the words of the citizenship pledge:
From this time forward, under God, 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.
They are words I will never tire of hearing, no matter how many citizenship ceremonies I preside over. In particular, it’s the words pledging loyalty to Australia and her people that I think are very touching, because it is not just to the nation of Australia but also very much to Australia and the people of Australia. Our people are what make us who we are.
Over the course of the last couple of months, from the time that the government introduced this legislation, I've been approached by many people, and overwhelmingly they oppose this proposal. Who are these people who are approaching me and asking me to oppose this proposal and saying they hope Labor will oppose it? They're not people who want to open the flood gates to illegal immigration, as those on the other side want us to believe, as the member for Petrie wants us all to believe. They are people who believe, as we all do, that a command of English is necessary for full participation in our country. They are people who want to see Australia thrive, as it has for many decades, as a vibrant multicultural nation. And they are people who are concerned about Australia and where it's headed.
There are a lot of points that I want to speak on about this particular bill, but I am going to start with the English language test. I must take issue with the minister for immigration's suggestion that the English language test, at an IELTS level 6, is not university level. That comment in itself demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding by the minister of exactly what the IELTS exam entails. The IELTS exam, whether it is for academic English or for general English, entails that you test to the same standard. How do I know this? Because in my youth, which wasn't that long ago, I was an accredited IELTS examiner. That means I used to teach English. I used to test people, using the IELTS scale and the ISLPR scale, and grade peoples' English according to the IELTS scale. I do not blame the minister or the member for Petrie—in fact, I do not blame anybody on the other side—for their lack of understanding, knowledge and expertise in English language teaching or English language testing. But I am very happy to offer them my services to test their English language on the IELTS scale. I have observed some of those on the other side speaking English right here in the House. Just listening to some of the speakers, I have noted repetition, hesitation and imperfect use of the past perfect continuous tense—all of which would make them not pass an IELTS test at level 6, which is what this government proposes as the standard for those coming to Australia. When we teach English and when we test English—
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
Mr Husic: He'll do the test. He said he'd do it!
Dr ALY: Fantastic! I do offer my services, in absolute sincerity, to test all of you and give you an IELTS score so that you can see exactly—
Mr Sukkar: Are you that arrogant?
Dr ALY: I am not arrogant. I actually have the expertise to do it because I am an accredited IELTS examiner, unlike anybody on the other side.
Mr Husic: She's accredited, mate. She can do it!
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
Dr ALY: I can do it. Can you do it?
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
Dr ALY: There you go. It is an offer made in all sincerity. I am very, very happy to test you. When we teach the English language, and when we test the English language, there is something called communicative competency versus accuracy. The thing is that, when we test with IELTS, we are testing for grammatical accuracy. But you do not need grammatical accuracy to be competent in communicating ideas, whether in the work place or right here in this very House—as we have observe from some of those on the other side when they get up to speak. That is my first point.
My second point in relation to English language testing is that the current system we have in place through the Adult Migrant English Program aims to teach to the level of ISLPR 2—that is, level 2 of the International Standard Language Proficiency Standard Rating—which is the equivalent of IELTS level 4 or 5. New migrants coming to Australia who are eligible for English language classes are currently provided 510 hours of tuition. But that is only if you are tested at a level that is below ISLPR 2. If you are below level 4 or level 5 in the IELTS, you are not entitled to English language classes. But this government is proposing that you must pass an English language test at level 6, which is university-entry level.
For somebody who arrives in Australia with zero or limited language proficiency, 510 hours of tuition is not enough to get them to the point required to pass the proposed test. Some research that I have done in the past suggests that it takes up to a year of full immersion in a language to gain one point of competency in English. So somebody with zero or limited English language literacy has either no chance or a very slim chance of passing at an IELTS level 6, even if they are here for the full four years.
Many Australians who have lived here for many years, and many who were born here, would not pass the IELTS test to a level 6. Of course English language is important. It is absolutely essential to full participation and full participatory citizenship—not just formal citizenship, not just the bequeathing of citizenship through a certificate, but participatory citizenship in Australia. That means full participation in economic, social and political life. Research that I have done shows that the vast majority of migrants and refugees want to learn English. They understand the need to learn English and they view it as essential to their participation. I'm quite happy, again, to pass on that research to those on the other side. So why are we putting barriers in their way? Why make it impossible for them to ever be able to pledge allegiance to our country and to our people, as they desperately want to do?
The other point I want to make about this bill is the residence requirements, because the residence requirements don't just impact on those from the countries 'what don't speak English good'. They don't just impact on those 'brown people what come from those countries where English is not spoken language of what they say every day' and they need a 'centre for people who don't read and write English good'. They impact everybody.
Mr Husic: Like in Zoolander.
Dr ALY: Like in Zoolander. I love a good Zoolander quote. They impact everybody. I've had approaches from people from countries all around the world who have come here to settle in Australia, who have been here for four years and who are now unable to attain citizenship or who are confused by these amendments to citizenship and who are already experiencing long delays in their citizenship applications. To think that they will now have to wait maybe up to 20 years before they can pledge allegiance to a country that they are already contributing to! I know that my colleagues have made the point that this creates a second class of people here who can never attain citizenship. Don't we want to integrate those people? Don't we want those people to be able to take that pledge for Australia? Don't we want them to be able to say that they pledge allegiance to Australia and its people, share in our democratic beliefs and respect our rights and liberties? Don't we want them to do that? I think we do. I think we all do. I think everybody in this chamber does. I don't think there is anybody in this room here today or any other day—there are not many here today—who would disagree with that. The residency requirements don't just impact a small number of people; they impact a whole range of people coming from a whole range of countries, including those who are coming here from English-speaking countries.
The third point that I want to make is in relation to the Australian values statement. Of course, all Australians should sign up to our laws and our values. Labor is committed to that. But here's the thing: the law already allows the government to put forward any questions in the citizenship test that they like. So what exactly is this amendment for? Why is it included in this bill? To me, it seems that all it is is an attempt to hoodwink Australians into thinking that the government are doing something effective.
I want to stress two words here, I want to stress the words 'reasonable' and 'effective', because they're not just words; they really should describe any measures that we take in relation to whole a range of things. All measures that we take here in this House should be measures that are reasonable and effective, because you can't have one without the other.
This brings me to the point of national security and the fact that conflating this legislation with national security is neither reasonable nor effective, because this bill does not come on the advice of the national security agencies. Time and time again, we see this government trying to pass legislation that appeases their far right and win votes by playing the politics of race, by inserting measures that are neither reasonable nor effective. They don't just impact on the minority that One Nation and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection want to target; they affect everyone in Australia.
Let me demonstrate why this is neither reasonable nor effective in relation to national security. There is not one shred of empirical evidence that suggests that proficiency in English language is some kind of resilience factor to violent extremism and terrorism. I challenge the minister for immigration and those on the other side to produce for me the empirical evidence that says that, if you know English well, you are less likely to become a terrorist. I challenge them to produce the empirical evidence that says that those with better English are less likely to become radicalised. I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, they won't find that evidence, because it does not exist. It does not exist; there is not a shred of evidence. In fact, most of those who have gone overseas to fight for Daesh speak, read and write English very well. It's the very reason why ISIS produces propaganda in English—very well-written English, I might add, level 6 English and above, as a matter of fact.
So we don't support this bill. We don't support this bill, and it is not because we're soft on border security, it is not because we want to open the floodgates and it is not because we don't want people to learn English. It is not because of any of those reasons that those on the other side keep telling us and the Australian people. Of course we support strong national security; we have always been bipartisan on that. Of course we want people who come to this country to be able to fully participate as citizens. Of course we understand that citizenship is not a right, it's a privilege. And of course we want to make sure that those who come here and who take up citizenship do pledge their allegiance to our values and believe in our democratic system. We want to ensure that they are able to do that, we want to ensure that they are able to get jobs and we want to ensure that they are able to fully function as Australian citizens—not just get a certificate that says they're an Australian citizen. We want to help them do that.
But this legislation does not do that. This legislation does not make that better. This legislation is neither reasonable nor effective. If we want to govern here in this House for all Australians we must continue to ensure that everything we introduce is reasonable and effective. So we don't support this bill. We don't support this bill, because we see through it. We stand for being smart. We stand for being smart about immigration and effective on national security. And it is because we listen. We listen to the people of Australia when they tell us that they do not want this legislation. (Time expired)
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (16:52): I am so proud to rise today as representative of Chisholm, one of the country's most diverse electorates, and of immigrant heritage myself, to discuss the Turnbull government's citizenship reforms in the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017.
These reforms are about maintaining the integrity in our migration and citizenship programs. It is in the Liberal philosophy and in our DNA to support a nondiscriminatory immigration policy and to embrace and include those of migrant heritage. It is the Turnbull government that has always provided clear direction and policy in relation to ensuring any reforms are always made with one key consideration: what is in the best interests of Australians and future generations of Australians?
Reforms are just that, they reform existing laws. Reforms are to ensure that our laws are consistent with a modern Australia. Australian citizenship involves a clear commitment to this country, its people and our shared values. Australian citizenship is a privilege to be given by the Australian people. When you listen to the confected arguments by Labor, their views seem to align more to the view that citizenship is an individual right to be claimed rather than a privilege. It is not an individual right to be claimed; Australian citizenship is a privilege.
There are intrinsic links between migration, border protection and citizenship. It took the Turnbull government to clean up the chaotic mess Labor left the country in in relation to border protection. It is the Turnbull government that has provided strong and secure leadership. It is the Turnbull government that has maintained a nondiscriminatory migration policy and it is the Turnbull government that is tightening our citizenship laws to ensure maintaining the integrity of everything it means to be Australian and our Australian values.
Labor are hell-bent on creating division in the Australian community. They want to block this for the sake of blocking it. They are good at that. I have spoken to literally hundreds of people in my electorate of Chisholm whose ancestry is from all over the world. I say here today that just as Labor recently blocked the opportunity for Australians to have their say only a few hours ago on same-sex marriage—something which may not align with their cultural norms and values in their faith or religion—now they are blocking these reforms as well.
The people I represent in Chisholm know that I represent our Prime Minister's and our government's warm embrace of different cultures and languages, be they Chinese, Greek, Italian, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese or the like. They know that the Turnbull government's view is that being of a different ethnic origin is a fundamental pillar of 21st-century Australia. They know that the Turnbull government's focus is on building a strong economy and creating more jobs for Australians and working to encourage increased participation of women in the work force. They know that, above all, the strength and leadership of our Prime Minister is to do everything in our power to ensure our national security and keep all of us safe.
Importantly, the people of Chisholm know it is important to maintain public confidence in our migration and citizenship programs by demonstrating the government is committed to the highest level of integrity. Australian citizenship involves a commitment to this country, its people and our shared values, and it's a privilege to be given by the Australian people. There are several elements to these reforms, but fundamentally they are about ensuring that absolute priority is placed on respect for Australian values and demonstrating a willingness to integrate.
In my experience, it's the Labor Party and their union officials who do not hold back in discriminating, name-calling, assault and bullying. It's the Labor Party who use fear and scare tactics to try and win their argument no matter the issue, because they can't do it any other way. It's they who are quite happy to say that all Australians will engage in hateful debate in relation to issues such as same-sex marriage. And now the Labor Party are trying to confect an argument which makes no common sense for a modern Australia. Unbelievably, they are trying to argue against the reforms for which the clear objective is merely to harness the privilege it is to become an Australian citizen in modern Australia to ensure all aspiring citizens align to our values, integrate into our society and abide by one rule of law in this country. It is the Labor Party who would rather values and laws of other countries seep into our country's psyche—values and laws which fly in the very face of the Liberals' principle of equality for all.
Recently, an otherwise unremarkable scene in a Box Hill shopping centre in my electorate of Chisholm made memories come flooding back. I observed a young girl alternating between speaking Mandarin and English acting an interpreter for an elderly woman whom I assumed was her grandmother. This took me back to the 1970s, when as a young girl I would always act as my grandmother's interpreter. My grandma, like many migrants of her era, couldn't speak, read or write English at that time even though it was some 40 years since my grandparents had migrated and settled in Australia in the 1930s. Together they'd made their livelihood from their small business, a small fish and chips shop.
Grandpa was the front-of-shop man and, like many migrants to Australia, had on-the-job English lessons from his many customers, suppliers and work mates. Granny, on the other hand, worked just as hard in the business but was very much in the background and had the primary responsibility of raising the children. Theirs was a very typical arrangement for many migrants, where the woman either stayed in the home or worked in the small business behind the scenes or in jobs that didn't require communication in English. This meant they couldn't speak, read or write English, their independence was thwarted and their integration into the general community diminished. They couldn't learn to drive or access services. They were denied the most basic of things such as driving, and they were limited to jobs of unskilled labour.
There are many people who are still in this predicament. Our ageing population necessarily includes an ageing migrant population. In speaking to my constituents of immigrant non-English speaking heritage, be they Chinese, Indian, Greek or Italian, one of their worrying concerns is the isolation felt particularly by their parents and grandparents as they age, and it is glaringly worsened by the fact that they cannot speak English. This is particularly the case for migrant women, and a consequential benefit of the changes the Turnbull government is making with regard to proficiency in English will be a change in the scenario for future generations of Australian citizens.
There are those in the Labor Party who say their ancestors would not have passed the English test. The fundamental flaw in this argument is they're not comparing apples with apples. They are comparing the migrant experience of today to the migrant experience of up to 100 years ago. At that time, the participation of women in particular in the workforce was nowhere near what it is today. Increased participation of women in the workforce is necessary for our economic growth and to create true equality for future generations of those with immigrant heritage. There are many migrants today, particularly women, who still have no command of the English language, and, as a result, their independence and especially their financial independence is thwarted. Aspiring citizens of this country, male or female, can really only truly embrace the opportunities this country offers if they are competent in our national language, the English language.
Introducing a requirement for applicants to demonstrate competent English language through listening, speaking, reading and writing skills is essential for workforce participation. Contrary to Labor's fear-mongering and false claims, as we just heard from the member for Cowan, the higher-level academic test is not required for migration or citizenship purposes but rather a general training test at a competent level.
Specifying a requirement to sign an Australian values statement essentially requires applicants to make an undertaking to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community in accordance with Australian values, and we make no apologies for requiring this. Values based questions will be also be added. These are good reforms that align to the future of modern Australia, which, again, the Labor Party rejected, for the sake of it—they are just blocking this.
I'd like to demonstrate, just by one example, why I wholeheartedly endorse the signing of an Australian values statement. Earlier this year, I was on the stage at a local primary school, about to give out awards. I reminisced about my childhood at primary school and about taking my children to primary school on those February Melbourne mornings which indicated that a very hot February day was about to be upon us. I reflected that the sea of hundreds of young and excited faces before me represented a wonderful microcosm of the diverse population in Chisholm, one of the most culturally diverse electorates in the country. As the young students stood and sang our national anthem proudly, while senior students marched in the hall bearing our flag, there was a buzz and an air of excitement, as the students knew this was no ordinary Monday morning assembly. Proud parents lined the perimeter of the hall to watch the assembly as the children received their leadership badges.
As each student's name was announced they came up onto the stage, but I noticed that a few of the kids didn't know what to do. What I noticed more was how subtly and kindly the principal taught them—what is commonly called, in the business world, 'in-the-moment training'. To these students she quietly said, 'You need stop, look Julia in the eye, shake her hand and say, "Thank you," when she says, "Congratulations." Then you'll receive your badge.' The principal taught them an Australian tradition, a value, a principle, respect for the occasion and the honour of receiving an award.
MPs are routinely invited to such events, but this was no ordinary assembly for me either. The event stuck in my mind because it was in stark contrast to something which, only weeks before, had been depicted in a video, published on social media by an Islamic group, of two women, one of whom was also a primary school teacher, claiming that men were permitted to hit women and, for the Sydney schools that hadn't established an agreed protocol, that Muslim boys didn't need to shake the hands of female presenters or teachers. None of this is okay under Australian values. These attitudes have no place in modern Australia and represent a blatant disrespect of our laws and our values.
Equality for all is a core Australian value, and the Turnbull government has zero tolerance for those who endorse the breaking of laws, do not align to our values and commit crimes such as violence against women. All Australian values are underpinned by respect, which is demanded regardless of people's ethnicity or gender. The current Australian values statement includes an understanding of respect for freedom of the individual, freedom of religion and equality for all. And the English language, our national language, is an important unifying element of these values.
Finally, those on the other side weakly argue, 'It ain't broke, so don't fix it.' Indeed, it ain't broke. We are the most successful nation on earth because of the people of immigrant heritage—the people who, in the words of our national anthem, came across the seas and toiled with hearts and hands. This is not about fixing something that is broken. Rather, it is about harnessing the privilege of becoming an Australian citizen and cementing our success as an immigrant nation for future generations. It's about taking what has essentially become an administrative process to encourage a more meaningful participative journey which supports and enhances the lives of those who choose to become Australian citizens.
The Labor Party are merely doing the same old thing: disagreeing with change or reform for the political point scoring and for the purposes of being obstructionist or negative, whilst engaging in their Labor hypocrisy, saying one thing to people's faces but actually meaning another. To every person in my electorate of Chisholm, of any migrant heritage, regardless of whether they voted for me or not, I say: ignore the critics, the discrimination, the taunts and the name-calling like I've received from the Labor Party and the unions. Being an Australian citizen, being true blue and of an ethnically diverse background at the same time, is the foundation of 21st century Australia. The whole purpose of these reforms is to further build on our successful immigrant nation in the context of a more modern world. Part of the beauty and vibrancy of Australia's diversity is that we can freely and openly express our opinions in the context of our different cultures through different languages.
These freedoms are based on respect and equality for all, and speaking English is intrinsically linked to our culture. Equal opportunity is the hallmark of liberalism, and the modern overlay of requiring people to pass an English test and commit to our values is a core element of the Turnbull government's reforms. The Turnbull government's strengthening of our citizenship laws are practical and sensible reforms, whilst harnessing the integrity of a successful multicultural Australia. They convey that, to call Australia home and be a part of the Australian family, one must be able to speak our language, obey our laws and respect our values. And core to this is equality for men and women.
I am so proud that in Chisholm over 136 different languages are spoken every day. Chisholm includes the suburb of Oakleigh, which has earned the title of epicentre of Greek culture. Given my Greek heritage, Oakleigh is close to my heart. Also in Chisholm is the suburb of Box Hill, where roughly 100,000 people attend the magnificent Chinese New Year festival every year. Language is the key source of communication between people in different cultures, so it's not surprising that part of the beauty, vibrancy and diversity is that we can freely and openly express our different cultures. Notwithstanding the rich and vibrant diversity of cultures in Chisholm, and the concentration of certain cultural events and traditions in certain suburbs, the common bond is the values, laws and national language of our country.
Australian citizenship is a significant honour and brings with it responsibilities and privileges. It's the official welcome to our home. It has to be respected and earned. This is our Great Southern Land, an immigrant nation, the most successful multicultural nation on earth because of the millions of people who have come from lands far and wide. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): Member for Chisholm, I'm sure your yaya is very proud of you! I call the member for Whitlam.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (17:07): Every Australian child learns the words to our National Anthem. The opening stanza says:
Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
And the second verse says:
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
That speaks to everybody who applies for citizenship. Never has the gap between the words in our National Anthem and the deeds of this national government been so great. We have before us today a bill in search of a purpose. They want us to think it's about national security. But it's not. They want us to think it's about creating an environment where you have greater adherence to national values. But it's not. They want us to think that the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is about ensuring the people who live in Australia can speak English. But it doesn't. It does none of these things. But the noise and the debate that will surround it will send out the message that this government, a desperate government, wants to send out—that they care about and are trying to do something about all of these things, when they are not.
Malcolm Turnbull often boasts that Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world. I agree; we are. So what's the problem here that we are trying to solve? This is not going to help strengthen Australian society but it does threaten to create greater divisions. We're happy to work with the government to create an adherence to Australian values, to have more people able to be fluent in English and to increase participation through citizenship. This bill does none of those things.
The gap between residency and citizenship is not a new problem. Ever since the great post-war migration boom, successive governments have put in place strategies which attempt to ensure that people who are living in Australia permanently, people who are permanent residents, are able to take out Australian citizenship.
In fact, it was the Menzies government that put in place a raft of changes in the 1950s—in 1955, in 1958 and again in 1961—which made it easier for people to obtain Australian citizenship, and for permanent residents to join the society of Australian citizenship. This bill is going in the exact opposite direction. The Menzies government introduced shorter qualifying periods of residency, eliminated the English dictation test and made the applications form simpler for those with basic English yet this government is scrapping all of those reforms and wants to reverse all of those changes. Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, is fond of quoting Menzies. Maybe he should stop just quoting Menzies and start listening to him.
I want to talk about the English language test. The previous speaker, the member for Banks, focused on this. Let's be very clear. Labor supports programs which will ensure migrants who come to Australia have more than a stamp on their passport, have more than a visa so they are able to participate fully in Australian society by speaking fluent English. In fact, it was the Whitlam Labor government that put in place the English training programs because it was the Whitlam government that understood that we owe more to the people that come to this country and help us build this great society than stamping their visa. We need to help them integrate fully into this country, and English is a critical part of that.
The problem with this bill is the level that those opposite are setting. This legislation provides band 6 proficiency on the International English Language Testing System. Now you may or may not be aware of this but band 6 proficiency is the level of proficiency equivalent to a university education—somebody who has passed a university education level test. I doubt there would be some MPs in this place who would pass a level 3, never mind a band 6 proficiency in an English language test. I doubt that every MP in this place would be able to meet band 6 proficiency in the International English Language Testing System. So let's not have this argument that's been put up by members of the other side that this is not going to be the requirement within the new tests. It is; and it's exactly the message that the government is trying to send out there. It won't do anything. It will do nothing to ensure that people improve their English language skills, but what it will do is put another barrier in place for somebody who is already a permanent resident in taking out Australian citizenship.
What needs to be understood is that what is being proposed here is out of step with every other OECD country. In comparable countries—the European Union, the UK, the US and New Zealand—the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia makes it very clear in its submissions in relation to this legislation that the common English language test that is held in other comparable countries is for holding basic English conversations. Let's not have this nonsense that's been put out by those on the other side that somehow that's not what the legislation means. It is what the legislation means, and it's the absolute intention of this minister.
The member for Banks gave a very personal story, a heart-felt story when she spoke of the circumstances facing her grandparents when they moved to Australia and it's a story that could be repeated time and time again by one-third of the people in my electorate who were born in another place but who have come to Australia and have come to the Illawarra and the South Coast to make these regions their home. It was a very common situation that the female would be at home, looking after the children, looking after a small business but it was the male, the husband, who would be in the front rollers, out in the work force picking up proficiency in the English language while the woman would not become as proficient in the English language.
The member for Chisholm—and I thank the clerks at the table for correcting me: it was Ms Banks, the member for Chisholm—is absolutely right in the story that she tells, but she has drawn the wrong conclusion. Merely putting in place a higher barrier at the citizenship test level is not going to encourage those people to take up the English language. It is going to discourage them from taking out citizenship. It's the English language assistance programs that are the very programs that are under attack by both state and federal governments as we speak. They are the programs that are going to be put in place that will help the people in the same situation as the member for Chisholm's grandparents, and the many, many hundreds of people in my electorate, to attain the level of English that is necessary for them to take up a full role and to be fully active in the Australian community.
The other argument that is put is that somehow asking somebody to sign a statement about adherence to Australian values is going be a meaningful statement by them and is somehow going to create greater cohesion in the Australian community. Well, there are many of us who doubt that very much and have doubts about who sets these tests and whether that is a valid test. I don't think anybody could seriously argue that the mere signing of a statement, as this bill proposes, is going to create a greater cohesion in and of itself.
I want to get to the crux of the matter, because, in the minister's second reading speech on this bill, he alluded to his concern that somehow this legislation was being brought forward and made necessary because of national security concerns. No expert who has looked at this agrees with those conclusions. Not one expert agrees with those conclusions, for this very fact: the new citizenship test requirements, by their very definition, only apply to somebody who is a resident in Australia. They only apply to somebody who is a resident in Australia. In fact, if the bill gets through, it will apply to somebody who has been a resident in Australia for four years or more. If that person is a threat to national security, you have to ask the minister if he has been doing his job, because they are already in the country. They have been given permanent residency, and they are now at the stage of applying to take out citizenship. So let's not have this fallacious argument that somehow these new measures are being brought forward because of the need to toughen the citizenship test to ensure that we have greater measures to enforce national security. It's not a credible claim. The people that are going to apply are already resident in the country and presumably have gone through all the vetting programs brought forward by the minister and his department.
But there is a deep concern—and some of my colleagues have spoken to this—that this legislation actually has the opposite effect to that. By creating this regime it is very, very likely that we will see, within the one family, the proficient speaker of English being able to pass the test and being able to take up citizenship, whilst another member of that household is not able to do that—divisions within the one household; those who feel included and those who feel excluded, and within the one family.
I have great concerns that this new test, particularly the English language test, will have the obverse effect—the absolute opposite effect—to that proposed by those who proposed it. Let me make this point very clear: there is not a person on the Labor side of the House who doesn't want to see more effort being put into ensuring that people can speak English when they come to this country from a non-English-speaking country. We want to ensure that everybody adopts the language and is able to use proficiently the language of English in the workplace, in the home and in education so they are able to fully participate in the Australian community. But let's not kid ourselves that new citizenship test requirements are going to fulfil that objective; they simply aren't. What will fulfil that objective is putting in place the sorts of programs that were introduced by the Whitlam Labor government in the mid-1970s, which successive governments, coalition and Labor, have supported for 30 or 40 years since. But, sadly and regrettably, at the state and federal level many of those programs are being underfunded, defunded and closed down.
This is a bill without a purpose. If it does have a purpose, its singular purpose is to enable members of the coalition parties to run around their electorates and say, 'We're going to do something to ensure everyone who comes into this country speaks English, we're going to do something about your national security concerns and we're going to do something to ensure we're all going to be adhering to some amorphous and unspecified set of Australian values.' But the truth of the matter is that this bill will do absolutely none of those things. In fact, many of the other steps, quite separate to this legislation, that the government is doing and the government members are voting for are driving Australians and the Australian community in the other direction.
We'll be voting against this bill in the House. It is going to a committee for thorough investigation in the other place. Perhaps if some sensible amendments can be suggested in the other place, it may enjoy our support there. But in its current form I can't support it, and I'm absolutely certain there's not a Labor member in this place who will support it either.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (17:21): I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I am Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. I have worked with the opposition to get broad terms of reference up for the committee's current inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes.. A number of those terms of reference look at settlement services, and there is strong consideration of young migrants who've been involved in crime. This is a bipartisan committee. We are endeavouring to come up with a strategy that best helps migrants who arrive in Australia, but we are also looking at section 501(6) of the Migration Act—the character test.
The reason the inquiry is giving special consideration to youth migrant crime is that, sadly, young people from the South Sudanese community are overrepresented for certain crimes in Victoria. When it comes to aggravated crimes or home invasions, South Sudanese born young people are the next group behind Australian born young people. When it comes to serious assaults, again they are in second position behind Australian born young people. It has become very apparent, too, that, a number of South Sudanese immigrants did not have the English skills they required when they arrived in Australia. What has happened was that, if they had the English ability of a grade 6 student, they were put in to year 9. Eventually, a number of them have fallen out of the education system and, through no fault of their own, have failed to gain employment. The situation has become very bad for a number of them.
We have spoken about what this bill is trying to look at when it comes to citizenship in Australia. My personal view is that Australian citizenship is an absolute badge of honour. All members of parliament talk about citizenship—the responsibility to respect the rights and liberties of the Australian community and to uphold and obey Australia's laws , serve on juries et cetera. This is always spoken of at citizenship ceremonies.
The first thing I'd like to discuss is increasing the general residence requirement, which means an applicant for Australian citizenship will need to demonstrate a minimum of four years as a permanent resident prior to the application for citizenship. In New Zealand it is five years; the UK, five years; France, five years; the US, five years; Germany, eight years: the opposition would have to agree that a four-year term is fair and reasonable.
We hear the concerns raised about English. Every single group that has come before the migration committee, whether it be a refugee support advocacy group or others, has advised the committee of the importance of English when it comes to getting involved in the Australian community as well as in the education system and for getting jobs. It is just so vital. With regard to those on humanitarian visas, initially the number of hours provided by government was 510. Prior to that, there was an extra 400 hours of special assistance package. The good news is, and this was going to be one of the recommendations of the committee, that young migrants, especially those on humanitarian visas in particular, need extra hours and this year the government, under the Adult Migrant English Program, has, from 1 July, included an extra 490 hours, which is an excellent measure.
English is also important when we talk about security. I, along with a number of colleagues from both sides of politics, recently visited the US, the UK, Germany and Sweden. We heard firsthand, when it comes to extremism, how important it is to ensure that young people who may be radicalised have a certain level of the native tongue, whether it be Swiss or German, or English for here in Australia. It is vitally important, especially in the UK. There's always a danger that when young people get into boroughs, as they are called in the UK—as we heard in Sweden, one of the greatest concerns the intelligence experts told us about was that if a person's not working and is hanging around with other people who aren't working, and all they do is talk jihad all day, then eventually bad things happen.
When it comes to what the government is doing with the English test, I concur it is definitely the way to go. You have to put some responsibility back onto people to make the grade. It's something that is so important, to become an Australian citizen, to make sure you that have English to back you up. There will be exceptions for those over the age of 60 years and under the age of 16 years. When it comes to signing a values statement, applicants undertake to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community in accordance with Australian values. Values based questions will be added to the citizenship test. The current Australian values statement includes the understanding of and respect:
… for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy—
as well as—
… the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.
That is very true.
When it comes to countries around the world that are regarded as on par with Australia when it comes to compassion, I don't think you can go past Sweden taking in 250,000 Syrian refugees. And yet in Sweden they have 100 hours that they set aside to cover what does it mean to become a Swedish citizen. What we are doing here, and what Minister Peter Dutton has done here, is no doubt very much in line with what the Swedish government has done, and I cannot see why the opposition would not support this measure for the best assimilation with the Australian community and to understand our laws. We have seen what's happened in Victoria, and, when we have had representatives from the African community, they have explained to us that young people who migrate to Australia quite often do not have an understanding of how Australian law works. So, again, I strongly support this statement.
In addition to the existing police checks which are undertaken as part of any application for citizenship, an applicant will also be assessed for specific conduct that is inconsistent with Australian values, such as domestic or family violence; criminality, including female genital mutilation; or involvement in gangs and organised crime. To me, that is a very fair and reasonable thing to do. I have put it out there before that, if a person is on a visa and is committing violent gang-related crimes, whether it be in Melbourne or anywhere else, or is an extremist, whether an Islamic extremist or a right-wing extremist, then, as far as I am concerned, if they are on a visa and their character is bad, they should have their visa cancelled automatically, especially if they commit serious crimes. At the moment, if someone on a visa commits a sexual offence against a child or receives a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more, then they have their visa cancelled automatically. In my view, that should be changed to include any term of imprisonment, especially for violent and serious gang-related crimes.
Other key measures include expanding the power to revoke citizenship when satisfied that a person has become a citizen as a result of fraud or misrepresentation by allowing revocation without a prior criminal conviction of fraud. The minister must be satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain a citizen. Each person being considered for revocation of their Australian citizenship would be given natural justice. Again, if a person wants to be an Australian citizen, we do not want them, before they become a citizen, committing crimes of fraud to assist with their application.
Amendments to the provisions would require applicants aged under 18 to also meet the good character test requirements and would extend the bar on approval for criminal offences to all citizenship application streams. Currently only those over the age of 18 years are required to do that. Going back to the situation in Melbourne, we have seen very violent crimes committed by people aged 16 years or even younger. Sometimes they are on five lots of bail. To me, it is only fair and reasonable that a person who wants to become an Australian citizen must be of good character and must not be involved in serious and organised violent crimes.
So, overall, I think these are very worthy changes. It sometimes seems that, for the opposition, this is the debate they do not want to have. But, if you listened to the evidence to the migration committee—and I say it has been a bipartisan committee—I think you would find that, overwhelmingly, No.1 is the requirement to have English to fit into Australian society. In particular, we had evidence from refugee advocates who said that, when it comes to a person getting a job, it is important to have that basic English understanding, to get in the door, to get that job, and for occupational health and safety. So what the government is doing here is very much in line with what we have heard in the migration committee. Obviously when it comes to the character test, there has been a different view from, say, police, compared to the view from refugee advocates, but, in saying that, overall, I keep coming back to the importance of English in the view of all those who appeared before the committee, including the need to actually push someone to make sure that they do everything they can to understand English so as to fit into Australian society.
I congratulate the minister for putting this legislation forward. I will be very interested to hear what comes back from the Senate inquiry, because I am sure they will hear a lot of evidence similar to the evidence I have heard through the migration committee.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (17:34): I rise to speak against this terrible bill that seeks to divide people in Australia from one another and to deny immigrants the most powerful symbol of belonging in this country that is available to them: citizenship. There are no constructive proposals in this bill. It is in fact a destructive bill. It tries to link citizenship to national security when there is in fact nothing at all to link the two. It tries to pretend that somehow citizenship should be viewed in a negative light rather than a positive light and it tries to pretend that increasing the number of people who can call themselves proud Australians is a bad thing rather than a good one. It is anything but.
Citizenship is about inclusion. It is about giving people a stake in the country they already call home so that they can feel a part of it, so that they can feel that they have rights but also responsibilities. It brings them into the tent. It helps to combat feelings of otherness. It reduces distance and it encourages integration and learning.
I don't know if the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has been to any citizenship ceremonies lately. In fact, I would be surprised if he had even in his own electorate, because, if he had, he would see that they are joyful affairs. They are all about family, togetherness and unity. People are so proud to become Australian. You can see it in their huge smiles and sometimes in their tears. I've attended three citizenship ceremonies in my electorate in the last few months. I've shaken the hands of parents with young families whose kids are excitedly waving Australian flags, of thirtysomethings and of one British man who'd lived in Australia for more than three decades. It was a privilege to be part of what was such a happy occasion for them. It always is.
When it comes to belonging, symbols matter. That certificate of citizenship means a lot to people. It particularly matters to people who have escaped hardship or persecution overseas and have expended an inordinate amount of effort to come to Australia.
It mattered to my father, who came as an unaccompanied minor escaping from Nazi Germany at the age of 11. He was also stateless. As a Jew, when he left Germany he was stripped of his German citizenship and his passport was stamped with a J. For a short time he belonged nowhere. His English, he says, was poor, but Australia to him and to his parents—my grandparents, who were incredibly lucky to escape Germany themselves and join him later—was a refuge and a safe haven. He became a citizen and has lived his life as a proud Australian. He has contributed immensely to this country. He is a well-known composer of classical music and of scores for film and television and received an Order of Australia in 1992. He is also, I might proudly add, a life member of the Australian Labor Party.
Stories like my dad's are not unique. There are people across Australia who are themselves naturalised Australian citizens, or the children of those people, who understand just how important citizenship is and how much it means to them or their parents. So let's have a look at the different ways that this bill tries to undermine citizenship.
This bill increases the wait time for people to apply for citizenship to a minimum of four years permanent residence. It sets a higher standard for English language tests, meaning applicants will need university-level English to pass. It amends the Australian values statement to include a reference to 'allegiance to Australia' and changes the test for Australian citizenship to include questions about Australian values. It introduces a requirement for applicants to demonstrate their 'integration' into the Australian community. Finally and most relevant to the shadow portfolio I have, it gives the minister power to set aside citizenship-related decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I will go through each of these in turn, starting with the extension of the wait time for citizenship.
It makes no sense to me why it might be said to be in the nation's interest to force people who are already permanent residents to wait longer than they already do to become citizens. Permanent residents already have to wait at least four years before they become Australian citizens. That does not include the time before they became permanent residents, which itself can take years. This bill will make all of these people wait even longer. Let us be clear: we already make it pretty hard for people to become permanent residents and then to become citizens. The bureaucratic hoops they must jump through are immense and the fees they have to pay are prohibitive.
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection says, 'Strengthening the residency requirement is intended to support integration and facilitate a more thorough evaluation of a person's commitment to Australia'. What rubbish! How on earth is alienating a new arrival from the rights of citizenship a way to promote integration? How many more years than four do you need for a person to prove they are worthy of living in Australia? I repeat: this law is going to affect people who are already permanent residents of our country. In truth, these changes will not promote integration at all. They will have the opposite effect. They are designed to make citizenship feel out of reach to a certain class of people and to exclude them. The result will only be more division and fractiousness in our country if new arrivals are made to feel that they do not belong as Australians.
Now to the English language test. The new requirements also raise the bar for citizenship to university-level English. Citizenship applicants will have to pass IELTS level 6 test in listening, speaking, reading and writing. Of course, Labor agrees that understanding and speaking English is an important part of being an Australian. That is beyond question. What we are talking about is the level of proficiency required. This new level is far too high. It is the same level required by some universities to enrol in their courses. Indeed, the University of Melbourne's Language Testing Research Centre says it would be too high for many Australian-born citizens with low literacy levels. We are not talking about some way of facilitating people to become citizens here. We are talking about putting another block in their way.
There are some people who have been living for decades in Australia who have contributed greatly to this country who have limited English or, indeed, have great English now but would not have been able to pass the proposed test when they first applied to become citizens. As I said earlier, my father believes he may not have been able to pass such an English test when he became a citizen, and what a loss that would have been to our country. This is discrimination at a base level. The new English test will hit different people in different ways. Those who are wealthy with access to education and private language tutoring will be fine, but imagine those who have come from war-torn countries on humanitarian visas. Will we deny them citizenship because they have not had the same educational opportunities? Apparently, under this government's proposed regime, we will.
I turn now to the government's proposals to require new citizens to demonstrate their integration into Australian society and for questions about Australian values to be included in the citizenship test. We know nothing about what this so-called integration test may look like because the government has refused to provide any detail. We may not know what it is but, my goodness, I don't think I have heard anything proposed in this chamber that sounds more Orwellian. How will we require new citizens to demonstrate their integration? Make them play a game of cricket? Determine if they can cook a barbecue? Sing Waltzing Matilda? Seriously, it is just ridiculous. I am sure the details of this test, should they ever be made public, will be even more alarming than the examples I have just offered.
To top this off, the government also wants to test new Australians on Australian values. I suppose the government, or even the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, gets to decide what those are. Or will they hold a plebiscite to determine what everyone thinks an Australian value is? I shudder at what the current immigration minister might define as Australian values. This is the same 'Team Australia' rhetoric we heard from the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah. There is a reason we have moved on. It is divisive rhetoric which sends exactly the wrong message to people. It is exclusionary, not inclusive and designed for cheap political gain.
Finally, and most relevant to my shadow portfolio, I am horrified at the new powers this bill proposes to give to the minister to overrule the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The minister has demonstrated his contempt for the AAT very clearly in recent months. This government hates independent umpires interfering with its agenda. Just have a look at the narrow escape three Liberal ministers had from charges of contempt for attacking the integrity of the judiciary. That is how bad things have gotten under this government.
This bill provides that the personal decision to the minister regarding citizenship cannot be reviewed on merit by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and gives the minister the power to override AAT citizenship decisions on the basis of character or evidence of identity. This is a truly worrying expansion of the powers of the minister without an avenue for appeal. I find it hard to understand the vendetta this government, and this minister, is presently levying against the AAT, especially considering that over 90 per cent of the current members of the AAT are, by now, people who have been appointed by this coalition government.
Under this new bill, a minister would be able to cancel citizenship approval or revoke citizenship with no right of review. The only condition the minister must satisfy is that this was done on the grounds of some—unnamed—'public interest'. This is acceptable, according to the explanatory memorandum for this bill, because 'the minister represents the Australian community and has a particular insight into Australian community standards and values and what is in Australia's public interest'. This justification is flimsy in the extreme. In fact, I would argue this current minister is hugely out of touch with the values of the Australian community. Do we really want him cancelling someone's citizenship because of some feeling that he has that the person in question does not fit in? Because that is what we are talking about here. Let's be clear as to what a merits review is. It is a review of the facts of the case. It seeks to correct where the minister has got something wrong. How can the minister think himself above such a basic process? It says a lot about the mentality of this minister and his obsession with gathering power, that this provision should even be included in this bill. It is not good governance, and Labor won't support it.
The second part of the AAT-related changes is a new power by the minister simply to overrule any decisions by the tribunal which he does not like. This is on the basis, it would seem, of a few tabloid front pages which the government has refused to provide a factual basis for, decrying so-called 'fake refugees'. This again undermines the role of the AAT as an independent umpire. What is the point of that if the minister can just reverse its decisions? These overruling powers are given to the minister on matters of 'good character', yet the term is not even defined under the act.
The overwhelming impression I get from this bill is that it is driven by a minister obsessed with power, with no obvious rationale beyond dividing this country and seeking to use nasty political tactics. I can barely think of a lower political act than this bill in the time I have spent in this parliament. It is the product of a minister who has lost touch with reality and lost touch with his country. Indeed, he has apparently lost touch with the heritage and history of his own party, given that it was Menzies who relaxed citizenship requirements. That's right. Menzies thought citizenship was a good thing and that it was a good thing for permanent residents to become citizens sooner, not later. There was a succession of changes from the mid 1950s onward by the Menzies government to make it easier for people living in Australia to become citizens; because, by living in Australia as citizens, they were going to feel they belonged to our country, and the sooner that that happened, the better. The Menzies government understood this.
What has happened to this minister's party, the party of Menzies, on Malcolm Turnbull's watch? It is barely recognisable as a party that stood for inclusion, as a party that stood for participation, as a party that wanted as many people as possible to become Australian citizens as soon as possible. I condemn this bill. I condemn the divisive ideas behind it and I condemn this government for bringing it to the parliament.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (17:49): As a member of parliament, I go to plenty of citizenship ceremonies. In my part of the world, they are very big affairs. Since I was elected, I have had a practice of starting each ceremony with an acknowledgement of country, paying my respects to elders past and present of the First Australians of my region of Australia, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. I tell those assembled that it is particularly important to make an acknowledgement of country at a citizenship ceremony because it is a reminder to all of us that, unless you are a First Australian, we are all migrants to this land.
As Victoria's former Premier Steve Bracks used to say, 'There's nothing more Australian than being a migrant.' You can feel this in the room at a citizenship ceremony. There is more passion for Australia in these town halls, in these community centres, pound for pound, than you will find at a Boxing Day test. Indeed, one that I was at just last month featured an individual live streaming the ceremony to his relatives on the other side of the world. I viewed the broadcast and I could see a crowded room of people watching this young man make the decision to become an Australian citizen. Indeed, it is rare you will get through an Australian citizenship ceremony without someone being in tears.
In my experience, people who have chosen to make Australia their home have a much keener appreciation of what our country offers its citizens, of what our country means than those who are born into it. As a result, I know they feel a much greater sense of obligation to their country of choice. I have seen how much Australian citizenship means to people coming to our country. That is why I am angry that the Australian Prime Minister is now seeking to use Australian citizenship as a political tool. That is why, along with all members of the Australian Labor Party, I will be fighting this divisive, un-Australian bill in the parliament and in the Australian community.
This bill makes a number of changes to the process of obtaining Australian citizenship. The Turnbull government says that Australian immigrants should sign up to Australian values and respect Australian laws before they get citizenship. That is fair enough. Indeed, every new Australian has to do that now. Here is the current citizenship pledge, a pledge all prospective citizens make before receiving citizenship:
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.
Every Australian citizen already pledges this during their citizenship ceremonies. Our current citizenship laws already allow the government to put forward any questions about Australia, which includes any aspect of Australia including our values as part of this process. The provisions of the bill before the House simply are not needed. The only practical effect the provisions of this bill would have in this regard would be to delay the time before which prospective Australian citizens can formally commit themselves to these values. If we believe making such a statement of commitment to Australian values is important, and I do, shouldn't we want people to do this sooner rather than later? These provisions in this bill are a cheap political distraction, nothing more.
The bill makes changes to English language requirements for prospective Australian citizens. It is fair enough to ask people coming to Australia to learn English when they arrive and for the government to support them to do so. It helps them participate as a citizen in our democracy and helps them get work in the economy. Government should always do whatever is within its means to help people living in our society to learn English. But, as acclaimed author and celebrated voice of Melbourne's Alice Pung has so beautifully written, it does not define people's ability to make a contribution to our nation. Alice wrote:
I think my parents have a fair idea of what a shared sacrifice for the common good means. They worked all the time when I was growing up. My father started a small watch shop and, as his business grew, he was able to give more jobs to more people. My mother worked from home, Aussie-battler-style, in the back shed.
As an outworker, she spent almost 20 years in the darkness of that shed. Most of the money she earned went into our education, so that I would have the opportunity to become a lawyer, teach at university and write books. Without knowing much English, our parents pledged their loyalty to Australia and its people the only way they knew how — through decades of tunnel-vision hard work, so that we are now doctors, teachers, dentists, speech pathologists, social workers, researchers and Rhodes scholars.
… … …
People tell me that migrants like myself are successful because we have made it to the outside world. But I am only here because someone invested in my education. Someone spent all their pay on a good school for me. Someone gave me space to write a book even though they would never be able to understand how important that was, because they had never read a book in their lives.
… … …
I was lucky enough to be born here. I would be accepted as one of the educated, professional migrant Australians of which the country can be proud, while my mother would be regarded as a foreign outcast. As an Australian, I am not sure I could ever be proud of citizenship on such terms.
Plenty of members of parliament would fall into this category. Indeed, there are members of my family who cannot speak English. I wonder how those on the opposite side of this House who fall into that category can look these family members in the eye while also voting for the bill.
While English is undoubtedly an advantage to helping new migrants to Australia integrate and developing their economic and civic agency, we should be careful about using it as a black-and-white test of whether someone is able to make a contribution to our nation. But, again, the test that people need to pass today to receive Australian citizenship is in English. You already need to be able to speak conversational English in order to pass it. What we are talking about in this bill today is the level of English we require, and setting the bar for Australian citizenship at a university level of English just isn't right. It demeans the contribution of millions of Australians to our nation. This provision isn't just an insult to prospective Australians either. It's an insult to all Australians who don't have university-level qualifications. It says that in the snobbiest Australia imagined by the coalition if you can't read, write and speak English at a university level they don't want you here.
Despite the minister's dissembling, the standard of English attainment required to pass this test is very high. Many will struggle to pass it. Misty Adoniou, Associate Professor in Language, Literacy and TESL at the University of Canberra, has written about her personal experience preparing students for this test. She writes:
I prepared students for the IELTS test when I lived and taught in Greece. They needed a score of 6 to get into Foundation courses in British universities. It wasn’t an easy test and sometimes it took them more than one try to succeed.
My students were middle class, living comfortably at home with mum and dad. They had been to school all their lives and were highly competent readers and writers in their mother tongue of Greek.
They had been learning English at school since Grade 4, and doing private English tuition after school for even longer. Essentially they had been preparing for their IELTS test for at least 8 years.
They were not 40-year-old women whose lives as refugees has meant they have never been to school, and cannot read and write in their mother tongue.
Neither were they adjusting to a new culture, trying to find affordable accommodation and a job while simultaneously dealing with post-traumatic stress and the challenge of settling their teenage children into a brand new world.
As Labor's shadow minister for citizenship and multicultural Australia, the member for Watson, has noted, there are a large number of people who will never pass this test. Are we then to have an underclass of not-quite Australians living in our country, people who will always be here but never have to pledge allegiance to Australia and who will never be told that they truly belong? It is abhorrent, and not the egalitarian Australia that I grew up in.
In a similar vein, the extended residence requirements of this bill—requirements that will force some people living in our community to wait four years as a permanent resident on top of however many years they may already have been living in Australia on a temporary visa—will serve only to divide and marginalise people in our community. If asking people to pledge their allegiance to Australia and its values is a good thing, let people do it as soon as possible. Don't create arbitrary hurdles to someone's ability to make a commitment to our nation. This can only serve to alienate people from our country, to exclude them from the society that we are asking them to commit to.
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection says these changes are about national security, but no national security agencies have asked for them. Labor is absolutely committed to keeping Australia and all Australians safe, and we have consistently demonstrated our bipartisan commitment to do so through the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. But the proposals in this bill have not been through the PJCIS, nor have they come from the Australian Federal Police, nor ASIO, nor our state counterterrorism authorities. That's no surprise, given that these tests will be applied to people who by definition will have been living in Australia for at least four years. People who are applying for citizenship will by definition already be permanent residents and have undergone rigorous character and security checks in order to come here in the first place. If they are a security risk, they should not be living here at all. Is the government suggesting that these people only become a security risk after they obtain citizenship? If so, how will denying them citizenship address this risk? If it thinks this whole class of people were security risks before they became citizens, what is it doing about them before they apply for citizenship? The security arguments for this bill are plainly a nonsense. It is all about tarring all prospective migrants to our nation with the slander that they are a national risk to Australia. This isn't a national security assessment; it's a political smear. The impetus for this bill came not from national security agencies but from a report by a Liberal senator. Its pursuit in this parliament comes from a power grab by an ambitious conservative minister in the face of a weak Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who is willing to allow Australian citizenship, the foundation of our democracy and our civil society, to be used in a political game to temporarily prop up his leadership.
The shameful political nature of the provisions in this bill are clear for all to see from the shameful process that produced this bill. The government spent months talking about this bill without providing a full briefing to the Labor Party about its contents, without providing any public detail about its provisions and all the while demanding that the Labor Party endorse it sight unseen. It ran a sham community consultation process and then refused to release the findings, sweeping the bill's flaws and the community's concerns under the mat. Given this, Labor has made it clear that this bill now requires detailed consideration in this parliament. The Senate committee process should be empowered to fully inquire into the detail of this bill, and experts and community stakeholders should be given the forum they deserve to share their concerns about this bill.
I'm proud to represent a diverse migrant community in this parliament. Two-thirds of the constituents in my electorate were either born overseas or have a parent born overseas, and this is the story of my family, too. I like to tell people that Footscray, in Melbourne's west, is like Australia's welcoming mat. Over the past hundred years we have welcomed wave after wave of new arrivals to this country; it is their first stop when they arrive in Australia. We have seen the Irish, the Maltese, the Greeks, the Italians, the Polish, the Turkish, the Lebanese, the Vietnamese, the Filipino, the Chinese and now the Indians, the Sudanese, the Eritreans and the Ethiopians. They come to Melbourne's west on their first stop to becoming members of the Australian community. Whilst some have only paused for long enough to get their bearings and to get established in this country before moving on to put down roots in other parts of our nation, the presence of each generation has left sedimentary layers that shape our community to this day. Across Australia, these waves of migration have shaped our national identity across the generations.
For a shamefully long period in our early history, the waves of immigration that made Australia the vibrant, diverse nation it is today—the nation we all celebrate—were distorted by a different English language test. The 50-word dictation test that for many decades underpinned the Immigration Restriction Act—the white Australia policy—is looked back on as a shameful period in our history. We have come a long way as a parliament and, indeed, as a nation since those days, but we should not be under any illusions. Bills like the one before the parliament today and policies like the ones we debate in the parliament today will define the kind of nation that we are and the kind of nation that we will become in the future.
What we are debating in the parliament today is whether Australian citizenship will be something that brings us together as a nation—an inclusive concept that makes us stronger as a community and as a country—or whether Australian citizenship will be used as a tool to divide our community and to exclude members of our society from having a shared stake in the future of our country. I know the kind of Australia that I have grown up in. I know the kind of Australia that I want my children to grow up in. It is an Australia where citizenship remains a common touchstone—something that we all share and revere as a symbol of our shared values and our shared ambitions as a nation. I will do everything that I can in this parliament to protect that for the future, and that is why I will be voting against this bill.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (18:03): I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I will say at the outset there is no doubt, as more detail of this emerges and, indeed, as submissions to the Senate inquiry become clearer, that this bill to attack Australian citizenship is a truly appalling piece of legislation. Even for this Minister for Immigration and Border Protection it's a shocker, and that is a big call. It attacks viciously the egalitarian ideals that have underpinned Australian citizenship for decades—the notion, the hope and the promise that migrants we select can come, settle as permanent residents and gain citizenship to build a life and contribute to enhance our permanent settler multicultural society where people speak many different languages.
If passed, this bill would introduce a university-level English language test at a level so high and difficult that I bet millions of Australians would not pass—we now have expert advice to the Senate committee that that is not an assertion, but it is fact—including many in this parliament. It would massively increase the period that permanent residents need to be living in Australia before being able to apply for citizenship. There is no evidence of why this is needed; apparently it is just a good thing. It would condemn hundreds of thousands of permanent residents, tens of thousands of whom live in my electorate, to a life as an underclass, living here, working, running a business, paying taxes, raising families but not able to pass a grammar test and be counted as full members of our diverse Australian community. How on earth does that make us a better society? How on earth does it make us a more cohesive society, a more secure society?
We have every right to expect that permanent residents who have been here take the pledge of allegiance sooner rather than later. That's a good thing. The minister's overblown rhetoric of this being some national security initiative was shown very quickly to be false. There was no advice from national security agencies. It is just a scare.
This matters to me a lot as the member of parliament who represents the electorate with, I think, the highest percentage of people born overseas. Around 55 per cent of people in the Bruce electorate in the last census said they were born somewhere else. And this includes many skilled migrants, business migrants and refugees. Interestingly, I have 157,000 people in my electorate, but there are only 95,000 on the voting roll because we are such a diverse community and include many noncitizens. I feel it's my responsibility to represent all people, not just voters.
At a recent public meeting in Springvale that the member for Isaacs, the member for Hotham and I hosted we had over 500 people turn up on a dark and stormy night to express their outrage and opposition to this legislation, to urge us to take a stand and not back down. I note that these were not all noncitizens who turned up. Indeed, the majority of the meeting, I'm absolutely confident, were citizens: people associated with family and friends, many just insulted, others simply worried about their community cohesion and fabric. In my view, from what I have seen, the government has seriously miscalculated politically and should quietly hope the Senate buries this terrible bill.
But I'm also here as a citizen born here who passionately believes, as I said in my first speech, that Australia's human diversity is an enormous strength for this nation. The different cultures enrich us, but it's also of great economic import. Welcoming and valuing people who speak other languages and who bring other cultural understanding and networks has been shown time and time again to underpin trade and investment growth, particularly as we forge our way in Asia in the coming decades. And this nonsense undeniably will deter thousands of the brightest people from coming here. There's nothing wrong with highly skilled migrants, researchers and so on coming here aspiring to Australian citizenship, but many of these people will never have the time to learn to pass an IELTS 6 English grammar test.
I will start with the worst aspect. The English language testing provisions I can only conclude are deliberately over the top. We need to be clear what's actually proposed, because the government is engaging in spin. An IELTS level 6 test that the minister calls 'competent' is not a test for everyday English. It was designed for university admission. It's interesting that in the last few days submissions from the Senate inquiry have emerged. I'll read a couple of quotes from the University of Melbourne's language centre, who have said it is unsuitable for establishing readiness for citizenship and the proposed level is too high.
Of course no-one disputes learning English is important, but the current citizenship test is already in English and this conversational English has served Australia well for decades. Particularly embarrassing for the minister is that his very own appointed multicultural advisory council has written that this standard 'is too high and above that needed to achieve the aim of integration.' That's the minister's own hand-picked council telling him he's got it wrong. There are tens of thousands of people in my electorate who would not pass this test, yet they're great Australians. They run businesses, they work, they create wealth, they pay taxes and they raise kids.
The government also implied this is somehow to bring us into line with other countries as if that's a reason in itself for our somewhat unique context as such a multicultural nation. Nevertheless, again the submissions show that this is a complete and total fiction. This test, if introduced, would be by far the highest standard in the world. The conspiracy theorists would say it's deliberately so by the minister to force the parliament to reject this kind of extremism as some kind of dog whistle to certain groups of voters. But look at the facts. The United States requires people to read and write a sentence. New Zealand requires a basic conversation in English assessed by an official. Canada's level is just speaking and listening at a much lower level. The UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain do not use these university-graded IELTS at all.
In truth, what the government is saying to migrants from non-English-speaking countries with this legislation is that, if they had their way, they would rather you were not here at all. It's deeply offensive to every migrant for whom English is not their first language. There are passing assertions from the minister that the world has changed since European migrants arrived. They're just facile. Of course that's true. Change is a constant. It's kind of a fortune cookie in that sense. But this has nothing to do with the level of testing proposed. University-level English grammar is not necessary to be a good Australian. That was true decades ago, and it's still true today.
Refugees are our most entrepreneurial migrants. Research from the ABS some years ago showed that. They're more likely to start a business and generate wealth from nothing. In the year 2000, five of Australia's eight billionaires at that point had come to this country as refugees. Many arrived with no English. They get some conversational English and they make their way in the community.
On skilled migrants, I will take the example of university researchers who settle in Australia—global talent. We are in a competition for global talent. This increases our wealth as a society. Brilliant research scientists come with functional English, but they would never pass an English grammar test as proposed. But we're seriously saying with this bill that we don't want them here anymore as citizens. Somehow, because Minister Dutton's introduced this bill, we don't want those people in our country anymore—or are we saying,' We want you to take a couple of years off your world-breaking research and go and study English grammar, and then pass a test, and then you can stay'?
On business migrants, I used to run the business migration program, as a public servant in Victoria. It's an important and valuable economic contributor. People bring capital. They invest. They create wealth. And this is particularly significant for Chinese business migrants, although not only those. They come with functional English, but where on earth are they going to get time while they're running multimillion-dollar businesses in Australia and China to spend two years studying grammar? There is no answer. The community sees this as clearly anti-migrant. It is a clearly anti-Chinese measure according to the Chinese community, but I don't accept that; it's an anti-migrant measure more broadly. Fundamentally, they feel lied to, they feel misled and they feel cheated by this government.
The other significant change, of course, is at least four years of permanent residency in future to apply. The minister's line is that this has increased from one year. On the face of it, you might think that sounds reasonable, but it's spin. The current law already requires an applicant for citizenship to have lived in Australia lawfully for four years, including one year as a PR. So the Prime Minister and the minister are, frankly, misleading people in the way they explain this change.
What it will actually do, as the submissions to the Senate inquiry now make clear, is introduce perverse and damaging distinctions depending on which visa class someone happened to come to Australia in. If you came here and settled on a visa that granted you PR, permanent residency, from day one, fine—there is no change. But if you came and settled here on a temporary visa, and then later you got PR, then you have to wait years more, and again this affects the highest value migrants to this country. PhD students who've come here, paid for their masters and done their PhD to world standard at our universities will then have to wait years more before they can apply for citizenship. We should be making it easier for these high-quality migrants to stay in Australia and pledge their allegiance, and yet we're making it harder to the point of being impossible.
You'd suspect stakeholders had slammed this measure in their submissions to government, but we will never know, because Minister Dutton's secretive black hole of a department has eaten the submissions and won't show us. But the submitters to the Senate inquiry spoke out against this measure. I will read two quotes. The Australian Human Rights Commission said:
The differential treatment based on visa class does not advance the Government's stated objective of integrating aspiring citizens into the Australian community.
The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils Australia said:
The proposed amendment … will have a detrimental effect on community harmony, social cohesion and weaken the capacity of migrants to be empowered and integrated into Australian society.
It will have an impact also, I note, on Commonwealth government Public Service recruitment. Translators, with skills that we need, can no longer work in the public sector without citizenship in many parts.
The bill comes on top of growing concerns about the integrity of how the minister and department are administering the citizenship function, and integrity, of course, is critical in applying the law and in determining who gets citizenship in the administration. It must be an effective process, free from politics.
This House debated this very topic a few months ago: the growing and inexplicable delays in processing applications, delayed for years with no explanation. A Federal Court case last December exposed the scale of the problem: over 10,000 so-called complex cases, no resources and signs, the court found, of 'a deliberate shameful policy to manipulate the queue'. It may sound like an academic debate or a numbers game, but it's not. It has a very real human impact. I see the pain in my office each week—in fact, most days—when my staff deal with grown men crying at the front counter. There are mental health impacts of living in limbo for years and years, because nothing comes out of the minister's black hole of a department except the same crappy standard letter. They're stuck: unable to travel to visit dying relatives, unable to complete their studies overseas or to take jobs that require citizenship.
Of course only in 'Turnbull land' could such an incompetent minister be promoted. It's a bit like the Prime Minister and the NBN, I guess. Then again, the Prime Minister doesn't even seem to run this circus of a government anymore this week. And so it's in this context that proposals to give this minister more and unchecked powers are so deeply disturbing. I would note in passing that it is pleasing that the Auditor-General has decided to put administration of the citizenship function on his audit list for this year, so perhaps we will get some better insights into what is really going on.
I note also that this bill purports to effect these changes from 20 April, despite the fact that this is just a proposal before the parliament. The department, shamefully, has been turning people away who are trying to lodge their application, saying they don't want them now if they haven't had four years as a permanent resident—even though it's not the current law. The current law of Australia is as it stands, not as this bill proposes. This is not a tax bill where retrospectivity is an accepted form of introducing a new measure. It is a policy bill. Why is it retrospective? What possible reason is there for this? My office, and others, have been advising people to mail the hard copy to the department, keep the record and when this legislation fails they will hopefully be in the queue and processed.
Of course, it's not just business migrants. I had one family in my electorate who came to me in tears because they were due to be eligible to apply a week or so after 20 April. They'd been hanging on because their mother—I think it was their mother—was dying in another country. She had a few months left to live and they'd held off going to spend those last few months of her life with her, waiting because they were desperate not to lose the number of years of residency to get to that four years, with their year of PR, and they are stuffed now. They feel misled. It's a terrible and unspeakably cruel policy.
As with other legislative amendments in the immigration portfolio of late, this policy case has not been made. And there is a pattern of this with this minister. This minister is power hungry. Pretty much every piece of legislation seeks more power for himself. Every problem must be criminalised and securitised. His lust for power was recently evidenced by the home office department. There is no evidence or case that it will make us safer; it's just a powder grab in the government, battered through a weak Prime Minister. Members should really watch this minister.
In closing, it's not our job to unpick and try and fix up legislation that is this bad. The Senate inquiry will do its work. If there are parts of the legislation that are sensible, other parts that I haven't spoken about, then the government should bring them back as a different bill with grown-up justification and evidence so that we can do our work properly. But in the meantime, the only sensible course of action with this bill is to reject it outright. Thank you.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:18): I am pleased this evening to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It's commonly said out there in the public that if a member of the Labor Party tells you it's raining, you need to go outside and check. And we've seen it over and over again in recent years. We saw the 'Mediscare' campaign—completely fraudulent—with member after member of the Labor Party saying something that was completely untrue. And here we go again; it's exactly the same thing during this debate.
Earlier today, the member for Watson said, and I think I've got the quote right, 'You need university English, unless you come from one of the five white countries where English is the official language.' That is what is in front of us. He went on—again, I hope I have the quote right: 'It just happens that of all of the five countries that have English as their official language'—five countries deemed to have a white majority—'Singapore doesn't make the cut and India doesn't make the cut.' There are a few things that need to be said about those words. Firstly, let's look at the claim that this legislation requires university-level English. Let's put the facts on the table and see the Australian people make a decision on whether the Labor Party are again engaging in another misleading and deceptive ploy to deceive the Australian public.
Let's have a look at the IELTS, the International English Language Testing System. There are two streams to this. There is an academic module and there's also a general module. The academic module says: 'The academic module is intended for those who want to enrol in universities and other institutions of higher education, for professionals such as medical doctors and nurses who want to study or practice in an English-language country.' If you listen to members of the Labor Party, you would believe it is the academic test that is being given. But that is simply untrue. Each member from the other side of the House who has spoken on this has misled the Australian public by creating the perception that this is an academic test, when it simply isn't. It is the general training test. The general module says: 'The general test is intended for those planning to undertake non-academic training or gain work experience for migration purposes.' That is the test that this legislation deals with. I repeat: 'The general test is intended for those planning to undertake non-academic training.' Yet we have had member after member of the Labor Party claim that the test is for university English. That is completely and utterly incorrect.
Let's talk about the level 6 that is required. In the actual test, there are nine possible bands indicating the result you get on that test. Remember, this is the non-academic test. If you get a band 9 result you are described as having 'a fluent operational command of the language; appropriate, accurate, fluent and with complete understanding'. That is not the test we are asking for. We are not asking for a band 9. What about a band 8? If you get a band 8 result you are described as having 'a fully operational command of the language with only occasional, unsystematic inaccuracies and inappropriateness; misunderstandings may occur in unfamiliar situations; handles complex argumentation well'. We could ask for a band 8 English test. But we are not asking for that.
What about a band 7? If you get a band 7 result you are described as having 'an operational command of the language though with occasional inaccuracies, inappropriateness and misunderstandings in some situations; generally handles complex language well and understands detailed reasoning'. A band 7 could be a good standard for the test. But we are not asking for a band 7, we are asking for a band 6. If you get a band 6 result you are described as having 'a generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies and inappropriateness and misunderstandings; can use and understand fairly complex language particularly in familiar situations'. That is the band we are asking for. It is not a university level of education. It is band 6 under the non-academic test. I repeat: if you get a band 6 result you are described as having 'a generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies and inappropriateness and misunderstandings'. Surely that is not too big an ask? We could go down to band 5 or band 4, which maybe the other side are asking for. But let's just have a look at what band 5 says, if they think band 6 is too high.
For band 5 it says:
… has partial command of the language, coping with overall meaning in most situation, though is likely to make many mistakes.
Do we really want to have an English-language test where the result that we ask for is defined as someone who is likely to make many mistakes? I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that an English-language test where the result of your test is that you are someone that likes to make many mistakes is simply not high enough. And therefore band 6 under the non-academic stream is actually quite the appropriate test that we should use.
So I call on members of the opposition: if you want to debate this piece of legislation and if you want to argue the points of it, do not misrepresent the basic facts. Do not go out and claim there is a requirement for university-level English when that is simply untrue. We are not requiring the university test; we are requiring a band 6, which is effectively a 50 per cent pass mark.
The other thing I'd like to comment on, I will do so but I wish I didn't have to. The member for Watson said in his speech, 'Unless you come from one of the five white countries.' Dog whistling works both ways. False accusations of racism are also dog whistling. If you look at the member's speech, he said, 'The five white countries are exempt,' and implied that it had something to do with the predominant colour of the skin of the people of those countries, which were New Zealand, the USA, Canada and the UK. They are exempt from this English-language test, and to say that it has something to do with being a white country or a non-white country and implying that is the reason that it is put in, well, that is dog whistling and that is a disgrace.
I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker. The example was that Singapore doesn't make the cut. It has nothing to do with whether Singapore is a white country or a non-white country. Recent data—Singapore's own census—says it is only 34 to 35 per cent of homes in Singapore that have English as their first language. So you've got something like more than 65 per cent of people living in Singapore who don't have English as the language that they use at home. The 2010 Singapore census said that about 550,000 people, 10 per cent of the population, has no English at all. That is the reason why Singapore is not exempt. It has nothing to do with whether it is a white country or a non-white country, and to make that accusation in this chamber as the member for Watson did is a disgrace.
For India: again on some of the numbers that I have seen only 10 per cent of the population of India are actually recognised as having a good command of the English language. So there is no discrimination on the colour of their skin to have this English-language test for people who come from India or people who come from Singapore, and yet that is what is being implied by the member for Watson.
The entire purpose of this legislation is to unite us all as Australians, irrespective of what our background is or whether we come from a 'white' country. It is to make sure that the thing we all have in common is that we all have a good command of the English language so that whatever country we come from, we can go out and we can integrate and assimilate—whatever word you want to use. We can all mix in as one society and we can all be Australians. We can all be proud to be Australians. That is what this legislation is about.
Members of the Labor Party come in here and tell falsehoods about a requirement for university-standard English, when there clearly is not one. They mention white countries as having some sort of special exemption actually divides us. It divides us all and it demeans this parliament. I know there are many members of the Labor Party that, in good faith, want to see Australians all united as one people, irrespective of our backgrounds. I call on you during this debate: please do not use it as an excuse to drive a wedge between Australians, to try and divide us into different tribes. The legislation that we need and everything all of us stand for in this parliament is that we are all united as Australians, as one people. That is the premise of the legislation. I would ask all members of the opposition to consider that when they contribute to this debate and to not engage in the dog-whistling that we have heard. I thank the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): I thank the member for Hughes. The question is that this bill be now read a second time. The member for Fremantle.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (18:31): Perth, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My apologies, Member for Perth.
Mr HAMMOND: That's okay. Sometimes my spiritual home is down that way. It is a wonderful part of the world, but to label me in that fashion would do a great disservice to the honourable member for Fremantle who I am sure is a more upstanding character than me.
Mr Craig Kelly: Not a bit of it.
Mr HAMMOND: If you say so.
We are all political realists in this place—well, you would like to think so—certainly, they seem to be on this side of the divide. We all know that, if the numbers hold as they normally do, then this legislation will pass through this place and on to the other place. But there are some times and there are some occasions where it is entirely appropriate to make a stand, regardless of where the numbers hold. I have to say that I am very proud to be standing on this side of the divide in opposition to this bill.
This is one of the pieces of proposed legislation that truly speaks volumes as to the difference between us and them. The difference will be shown for what it is through an analysis of just a few of the proposed amendments in this bill. These proposed amendments make it very, very clear that what we have with this government is a lazy government, a government that is determined to try to draw a tenuous link between matters of national security and proposed changes to citizenship in order to sell itself to the community as being, perhaps— ostensibly—conscious of a security factor upon which they will act and we will not. But nothing could be further from the truth. Upon close inspection of what this proposed legislation reveals, nothing could be further from the truth. That is articulated as well as anywhere in the proposed amendments put by the Labor Party to this bill.
In relation to those proposed amendments, let me take you through a couple of them. As is set out in the Labor amendment, the bill is not a response to national security agencies. Instead, it is merely a response to a report by two members of the Liberal Party, one of whom has left the parliament—and I will have more to say in relation to that later. Most importantly, again, the context of this bill needs to be shown up for what it is. This is not groundbreaking vetting here. As is set out in clause 6 of the amendment, people applying for citizenship are already living here permanently. Their entry has already been subject to strict character-and-security background checks. If these permanent residents are a security concern, they should not be living here in the first place.
Let's have a look at the timing involved in relation to this proposed legislation. The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand say, 'This legislation is necessary in order to ensure that our national security stocks are bolstered', without making the concession that they have been failing to do precisely that in relation to appropriate character checks upon credentialing visa requirements in the first place. So either the government is not doing the job it should have been doing for the last four years in relation to appropriate security checks and needs this as a stop-gap, or this legislation ought be shown for what it truly is, which is simply the emperor's new clothes and a desperate and grubby attempt to try and smear those who are simply seeking a better life with a subjective, inappropriately high and retrospective examination of character which, if it had shown up any flaws in the first place, should have done so upon a visa-vetting requirement.
We go on in the proposed amendments that the citizenship test is already in English and we are committed to assisting immigrants to attain English language levels that allow them to take full advantage of the opportunities and benefits available to all members of the Australian community. Let's just reflect on that for a minute and let's reflect upon what makes us so proud to be the truly multicultural society that we are today. That evolution of consciousness did not occur in the last five years or in the last 10 years. It has occurred over decades, if not hundreds of years, in relation to this country being stronger, being richer, being more culturally diverse by the manner in which we have welcomed immigrants into this country so we can all ensure that our communities in Australia thrive, prosper and reach their full potential.
It strikes me very close to home that the federal electorate of Perth is an electorate which is incredibly multiculturally diverse, not just with new migrants but with migrants who have been there for generations. The home that I lived in with my family and young daughter before the one I am currently in—in Highgate, which is in the heart of the federal electorate of Perth—was in one of those terrific little communities that is undergoing transformation, truth be told, and had a very high density of Vietnamese and, prior to Vietnamese, Italian migrants who had chosen to make their life in Highgate. Across the road from our house, on the other side of the street, on Chatsworth Road lived this absolutely beautiful old Italian couple. The fellow's name was Guiseppe. He insisted on me calling him Joe. Joe would have been 75 if he was a day. Joe had the most amazing set-up at the front of his house. Whereas most people use their verge to park on, Joe used his verge as a fully fledged market garden that in any particular season, on any particular day of the week was overflowing with produce. Bear in mind, this is just off the Northbridge strip, not too far away, with plenty of general traffic and foot traffic moving along Chatsworth Road. It was there for anyone to sample if that was what they wanted to do. Joe would spend days and days on his verge cultivating his little market garden, growing garlic, growing tomatoes, growing corn—you name it. It was the kind of thing that brought people together. Many times I would stop and have a chat with Joe about how he was going, how his wife was going. They would get dressed up for mass and make their way very slowly around the corner in order to go to church. The service was spoken in fluent Italian.
The reason why we have a church that delivers a service in fluent Italian is because we have a whole swathe of migrants who have done nothing but contribute to our community to make it better, to make it richer but who do not have a level of English that would get them close to a level 6 requirement in order to pass the proposed tests that this government wishes to impose upon new Australians. So if Joe or Guiseppe decided he wanted to make a better life for himself and his family by coming to Australia today, he would not have a hope, not a snowball's chance of becoming a citizen of this great country and contributing in the manner that he has otherwise contributed for the last 50 years.
Why is it that we have come to a place where we are so determined to create this veneer of artificiality to say that there is a causal connection between your ability to hold a conversation at tertiary level and your ability to contribute to our community? How is it that we have come this far when there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that one equals the other, particularly insofar as national security concerns go? But it's actually worse than this, because not only is a logical analysis of this legislation revealing that it does not pass muster insofar as making our community a better place; this legislation is so cack-handed and was so lazily introduced to this parliament that we're not even seeing anything remotely new to adopt that is supposedly in response to recent events.
I will show that up for what it is in a very simple example. I know that a lot of people in this place—particularly a team I am incredibly proud of on this side of the dividing line—have spoken very eloquently in relation to citizenship changes, in relation to permanency and in relation to time lines. I would like to spend my remaining time showing this government up for what it is in relation to a complete denunciation of the meaning of the rule of law. That is in relation to a section which isn't getting terribly much airing in this debate, but it should, because it demonstrates just how lazy this government really is. It is in relation to a proposed amendment which introduces a new section, 52B, relating to a decision setting aside Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions.
As if it were not enough that we already had an enormous amount of discretion in relation to the minister being able to set aside decisions of the AAT in relation to refugee claims—I completely get that; I understand; that boat has sailed, for want of a better term; it is simply part of where we are—this section seeks to extend that power to the minister to be able to set aside decisions of the AAT in relation to citizenship changes. 'Where's the harm in that?' I hear you ask. Well, it's kind of a big deal, because, firstly, it is yet another way in which this place is seeking to erode a separation of the executive from the independence of the judiciary and completely thumb its nose at the rule of law. Coming from this mob, I kind of get it, sadly.
But what's worse than that is that, when you look at their supposed justification for why and you look at their explanatory memorandum for 2017, what they say at paragraph 330 is that this section is being introduced because:
In the last few years, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has made three significant decisions outside community standards, finding that people were of good character despite having been convicted of—
a number of offences. Just park that there. In paragraph 330, it goes on to say:
Three other recent decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have found people to have been of good character despite having committed—
other offences. Again, you look at that and you say, 'I think I know where they're coming from.' Then we realise how slack this mob are, because, if any of that sounds remotely familiar, it's because it is.
This mob tried to do exactly the same thing in 2014 through exactly the same proposal, which did not get anywhere, because of the proroguing of parliament. Just in case you thought that someone might have had a fresh look at this in relation to the reasons why we might need an introduction of a section which, again, seeks to usurp the rule of law, let's have a look at the explanatory memorandum from 2014. It goes like this, at paragraph 451:
In the last few years, the AAT has made three significant decisions outside community standards, finding that people were of good character despite having been convicted of—
particular offences. It continues:
Three other recent decisions of the AAT have found people to have been of good character despite having committed—
other offences. They are exactly the same paragraphs.
The explanatory memorandum that seeks to justify such a significant legislative change to usurp the rule of law on the basis of three recent decisions in the last few years in 2017 is based upon identical attempted justification in the explanatory memorandum of 2014, which also refers to 'the last few years' and 'three significant decisions' of additional recent review from the AAT. This government is lazy and determined to shine a light on something other than its complete ineptitude with economic management, education and certainly in relation to the simple ability of couples to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. They are so determined to shine a light away from all of that ineptitude that the best they can do is hit control-alt-delete or cut and paste 2014 justifications for changing the rule of law in to 2017 and saying this is all okay. Have things got so bad, have you all slipped so far in relation to your command of English, that the best you can do is cut and paste justifications from 2014 into 2017? Is that the best you can do? The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. If this is the standard you accept, then shame on this government.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (18:46): One of the unexpectedly best bits about getting elected to parliament is going to citizenship ceremonies. I didn't expect that this would be such a highlight of my job, but going to citizenship ceremonies at Richmond Town Hall and Collingwood Town Hall in Melbourne and up at the Moonee Valley Council is one of the best things that I get to do. For the people who front up, it is something that will happen once in their life. They're there with their family and their friends. Some of them have waited just a few years after coming to Australia—perhaps because of a loved one—and others have been after this for a big part of their life. But, for every one of them, as they take that oath of citizenship and become Australian citizens, you can tell that this is one of the most significant decisions in their lives. Maybe it's love that's got them there. Maybe it's work that's got them there. For many people in Melbourne it's the fact that they're now living in a peaceful society where they're not under threat of war, persecution or famine and they no longer have to wait for several years in a refugee camp in Kenya or in Sudan. They know that they are now able to live a life of peace and freedom.
For many of these people it is a turning point in their lives. I walk around the public housing estates in Melbourne—and we've got more public housing dwellings than any other electorate in the country. Many of the people there weren't citizens when they arrived here and probably did not speak or write very good English when they arrived here. But the ones who've gone on to become Australian citizens are some of the people that express the greatest pride and happiness in having been able to do so.
And then, of course, there are the people in Melbourne who came here after the Second World War. They got off boats from Greece or Italy and they probably didn't speak, write or read very good English at the time they got here. But they are some of the people that help make Melbourne great and they are part of the reason people come from all over Australia, and, indeed, all over the world, to visit Melbourne. When you talk to these people who have taken the journey to become Australian citizens, almost to a person they are so thankful for the opportunity that has been granted to them and they are just itching to say, 'What can I do and what can I give back?'
Pretty much every one of those whom I have met and spoken to at these citizenship ceremonies—and some of the people I have met have had to risk their lives to escape war or persecution, or had a family member who might be under threat of being shot, and some of them have left people behind in their home countries whose lives are under threat because they do not enjoy the kinds of freedoms that we do—has said that they are immensely grateful and asked, 'What can I do next to help work with everyone else to make Australia a better place?' When those people are prepared to risk their lives or sometimes put themselves or their families in danger, the question is: are they the kinds of people we want in this country? You bet! Someone who says: 'Australia is such a good place that I'm prepared to risk my safety or my life to get there, because it's better than the place that I'm coming from, and, when I get there, I want to do everything I can to help make Australia a better place,' is exactly the kind of person we want here.
The government could have turned around and said, 'We're going to use our position as the government, with the biggest megaphone in Australia, to say that people who've made the journey to become Australian citizens are, almost to a person—almost—exactly the kind of people that we want here,' and, 'We're going to acknowledge you and applaud you and celebrate you and do everything we can to make it easier for you to become part of Australian society, because we recognise that part of the reason that you've chosen to come here is exactly because we are a democratic, peaceful society that has the rule of law and that enjoys certain liberties. It is the fact that we're like that that has brought you here in the first place.'
Instead, what does this government do? Well, they're trailing in the polls, so along comes Minister Peter Dutton, the minister for immigration, thinking: 'We're not doing very well in the polls. What are we going to do? We'd better beat up on migrants. We'd better find a new way of beating up on refugees. We'd better find another way of drawing a line through Australian society and putting us on one side and them on the other, because we need something to fill a headline for yet another day.' And so comes this bill to parliament. Instead of working from the presumption that people who want to come here are coming here precisely because they respect Australia's laws and freedoms, they're saying the opposite: 'We're going to make everyone who is in Australia already think that anyone else who wants to come here wants to do us harm.' There is not only no evidence for that—because the overwhelming majority of people who come here are coming here because they want to enjoy Australia's peaceful society—but this bill itself actually does harm. This bill is designed to send a message to the people who are here that we should fear those who are coming, and that we should work from the presumption that someone who sticks their hand up to become a citizen does not actually really want to respect Australia's laws and that somehow this government is going to do something that's going to stop it.
Do you really think that, if someone is intending to come to Australia to do us harm, putting a few new questions on a test is going to make a difference? Of course not. What the government ignores, as they talk up the threat of terrorism in the context of this citizenship bill, is that, in many instances, as we're seeing around the world, the attacks are coming from people who might even have been citizens or born in the country in the first place. To suggest that somehow there is a higher preponderance of threat from a group of people who are coming here who want to be citizens is not only not borne out by the evidence but is just straight out and out dog-whistling.
Dangerously—for anyone who has followed the record of Minister Dutton—this bill gives the minister sweeping new powers. This bill says that the minister can set aside decisions of the quasi-judicial body, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In another context, they come in here and say, 'We couldn't possibly overturn the penalty rates decision of the Fair Work Commission'—another quasi-judicial body—'because that would be interfering with the independent umpire, but we're very, very happy, if we think it can boost our numbers in the polls, to give Minister Peter Dutton some more powers to overturn whatever the AAT decides.' It also gives him sweeping new powers to deny a person eligibility to sit the citizenship test in the first place. As Liberty Victoria said in their recent report, it is playing god. It is putting the minister in the position of playing god. He will possess, if this bill goes through, at least 20 individual non-delegable, non-reviewable and non-compellable discretionary powers. Under the guise of saying it is protecting the rule of law, this government is actually diminishing it. This government is saying, 'Let's give Minister Dutton, who most people in this country wouldn't trust with their lunch money, sweeping new powers that can't even be reviewed by a court.' It feigns to call it democracy.
Then the government comes along and says, 'In case we are not being racist enough, let's add in some new requirements for the English language test.' As we have heard from so many people around this country, if this test was in they would not have been here in the first place. It is not because people who came from Greece or Italy had done any harm to this country and not because the people who came from Vietnam on boats, fleeing persecution, had done any harm to this country. Under these new proposals, they might not be let in in the first place because of this English language test. It is why the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia makes the important point this is discriminatory and exclusionary.
If the government was actually concerned about people improving their English language skills, I could take them to a number of the neighbourhood houses or learning centres in my electorate where there are people queuing up to do their English language classes. When they reach the end of their allotted hours, they're told: 'That's it. There's no more government support for you. Now you're on your own.' So a lot of them are going out and voluntarily engaging in classes to improve their English. If the government is really that concerned about improving English language, it should provide and expand the support it gives to agencies who are helping people who are here to learn better English. Again, my electorate has one of the largest proportions of people who were born overseas or who have recently arrived in Australia. When I talk to people in my electorate, they say, 'Where can I sign up to improve my English to understand and improve my skills more?' If the government was serious about that or if, somehow, there is a massive crisis in Australia at the moment that there are not enough people who have great English language skills—I do not accept for a moment that that is a problem—then that is what it would do.
I look at my friends whose parents came from Greece or Italy and are now living in Richmond or in Ascot Vale, and I think, 'If this Liberal government had its way, you would not be here in the country with me because your parents or your grandparents would never have got in in the first place.' I would urge everyone in this country, including in this parliament, to have a think about who is in their workplace, who their next-door neighbours are and who has married into their family and just go back a generation or two and ask yourself: would that person, when they got off the boat or off the plane, have been able to pass the high-level English language test this government wants to impose on them? If the answer is no, then your spouse, your family member, your workmate or your neighbour would not be here. That is effectively what this government is aiming to do. It is aiming to say to people, 'You don't belong in this country; we'll send you back,' even though they are people I would call friends and fellow citizens.
One of the other issues that has caused a great amount of angst to people in Melbourne is the retrospective nature of this legislation and the fact there are so many people who have been working towards citizenship for such a long time. They have been making their plans about whether to rent or buy a home, about their jobs or whether to take up jobs and, in other cases, about whether to get married and start a family here. They have been making their decisions and their plans in their life based on the law as it was at the time. Then in comes this government and it says, 'You now need to wait an additional four years before you can apply for citizenship.' This applies now across the board, and it has thrown people's lives into chaos. The stories are hard. There are heartbreaking stories of relationships that now have to potentially uproot or that may not continue to exist. There are employers in my electorate of Melbourne who thought they might have some people signing up to continue working in world-leading medical and health research, but who now find those employees might not be able to be citizens after all. There are brains we are going to lose and there are hearts we are going to lose. Of course, the government doesn't care about any of that, because at the end of the day all of this is just simply some dog whistling.
If there is one silver lining—I don't think there is one, but if there is—to this legislation, it's that it is a sign of this government's increasing desperation. Do you want to know why, Liberals and Nationals, you are on the nose in pretty much every poll? It's because people have had enough of this rubbish. People have had enough of Malcolm Turnbull and his government trying to make people feel scared, when actually people are trying to come together. There is a lot going on in the world that is making people feel uncertain and insecure, and governments can either pander to that, as this one is doing, or they can bring people together. That is what a real and a decent government would do, and that's why this bill must be opposed. We should use this place to unite people, not divide them.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (19:01): Listening to the speakers on the other side of this House, you might be forgiven for thinking the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is somehow about trying to uphold Australian values. But I tell you, when I look at my community, this bill doesn't meet my definition of Australian values. Look at this country of ours: we are one of the great multicultural nations of the world. When we federated in 1901, one in four of us were born overseas and 40 per cent of us had one parent born overseas. Now, in 2017, the proportion of people born overseas is slightly higher, at 28 per cent, but we have been a multicultural nation that has welcomed migrants since modern settlement. Everybody that has arrived in Australia since that time is a migrant or a child of a migrant.
We have been a country that has welcomed people. We've built our community. We've taken people in. We've brought people in from all around the world to help us build this great country, and we expected them to have full entitlements to enjoy the benefits of citizenship. When we did a deal with the Turkish government back in the late sixties and we brought a whole stack of Turkish migrants to Australia, the Turkish government said, 'No, we only want you to take them temporarily.' We said, 'No, that's not what we do in Australia.' We opened the doors to Turkish migration on a permanent basis in the late sixties. I have an extraordinary community in my electorate of Parramatta, in Western Sydney, that grew from the opening of those doors. That is who we are. We are not a country that asks people to come here temporarily, that brings low-paid workers in and doesn't give them the benefits of citizenship—yet. We are not that country yet. But if this bill passes, we will very quickly become that parliament.
For me, the words of the national anthem are worth repeating today:
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.
Not with fear let us all combine, but with courage. You need to understand that people who choose to leave their country of birth and travel across the seas to build a life in another country are exhibiting extraordinary courage. They are making a choice that many of us wouldn't make, many of us wouldn't be game to make. They are actually transporting their lives to a new country and taking the risk that they can make that life work. And with this bill, this government is pulling the rug out from under so many people that came here in good faith, that made decisions about their lives, transplanted their families here in good faith and with an understanding of what the requirements were to become Australian citizens. However, with an announcement on 20 April, all of those plans came unstuck.
A little later, I will read out some of the circumstances that people find themselves in because of the government's plans to retrospectively apply this change, but I want to remind the House again that we are, in the OECD, a very rare country. We are No. 3 in terms of the number of people born overseas, beaten only by Luxembourg and Switzerland. And one might suspect that tax arrangements are one of the reasons why so many people who weren't born in those countries are technically residents there.
Mr Neumann: That is a reasonable assumption.
Ms OWENS: It is a reasonable assumption. But take the tax issues out and you will find that Australia is the most successful multicultural nations in the world. That's who we are. It is our values that have brought us to this place and it is our values that are under threat by this bill—not protected by this bill but threatened by it.
I live in one of the great diverse communities of Australia—Parramatta in Western Sydney. Forty per cent of people living there were born overseas, and about 60 per cent have at least one parent who was born overseas. Geographically, there are some sections of the community that have a greater proportion than that and some that have less. It is an incredibly diverse community. When I look at my community—which includes refugees, skilled migrants, family reunions and people who came as students—I see an incredibly successful and vibrant multicultural community, the community that we need in the modern world.
We generate a lot of wealth from what is in the ground. But, with the speed of change and the way that we all need to adapt to change, what you want in your population at the moment is incredible flexibility and diversity. You want the language skills and the ways of looking at the world that come from cultural traditions that are thousands of years old—and that is what we have. We are the population that you need to flourish in the modern world. We are it. That is why so many head offices are moving into Western Sydney and increasingly picking up 60 to 70 per cent of their staff from the local community. We speak every language, we are familiar with every culture, we know the opportunities around the world, and we have people who see the world from a range of perspectives.
For example, we have people within our community who have never lived in a secure environment. They have an incredible flexibility to move when things change because they come from cultures that never enjoyed the security that we have here. We need that. When we go forth as a nation and try to find our place in the modern rapidly-changing world, we need the population that I have. It is not the time to turn our backs on that and turn the clocks back to a situation where large groups of people are excluded because they don't meet some arbitrary new decision about what Australian values are. To say that you need university-level English to get into Australia is quite extraordinary.
These plans that this government has offend current citizens. They offend the people who came here and made good lives here who would not be able to get into Australia as citizens now under these new laws—the Greeks and the Italians. People who have been here for decades and still couldn't pass a university-level English test—and never will—could not have got into this country as citizens if these laws were in place when they arrived.
One of the people I admire most in the world is a woman called Elsa. I met Elsa when I was working at the Australia Council. She used to do our filing. She seemed to me to be an incredibly downtrodden person. She plodded through the day. Her English was fractured at best. Most people didn't talk to her because you couldn't have much of a conversation with Elsa. But one day she stood up at a Christmas party and recited a section of The Iliad. I talked to Elsa. Elsa had come to Australia at 18 years of age. She had two children and at 18 was pregnant with her third child. She didn't speak English. She had come from a Greek village. Her husband came with her. He stayed for six weeks and went back to Greece and left her here. She had three children by that stage. She had no English and no experience of a modern city. She was completely out of her depth. She worked three or four jobs as a cleaner—she worked any job she could get—put her three children through law and medicine. And that is what she was doing when she was working at the Australia Council. This woman, who would never make it through this test, raised three children. And then, when her kids left university, she went back to school, got a high-school diploma and started teaching English as a second language; and that is when her life began. For me that woman is a successful Australian because she knew what she needed to do and she put all her effort into doing it. She was an extraordinary Australian and wouldn't get in.
These tests offend our citizens. They offend people who have made extraordinary contributions to this country but would not get in. This government is saying to them: 'Mistake. Shouldn't have let you in. You wouldn't get in now.' That's what this bill says. It prevents future great citizens from fully participating in our society and it puts up barriers to international travel and study. For people who are doing great things in this country who need citizenship in order to contribute fully and build their lives as Australians, it prevents them for long periods of time from studying and doing the international travel that they need to do. It puts up barriers and it disrespects decisions that people have already made in good faith.
I have a friend who has a local business. I actually didn't know she wasn't a citizen, because I've been going to her for years. She runs her business. She pays her taxes. I know she employs people by the Fair Work Act, because she phones them all the time to double-check. I thought she was an extraordinary Australian. Two days after the government announced this decision, she told me that her husband had just become a citizen and that she was intending to apply but now couldn't. She had to wait another three years because she'd only been a permanent resident for one, which meant that for the next three years they were going to be citizens of different countries. That for her was incredibly frightening because she came from a part of the world which was not secure.
Both of them have built really good lives. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They're a family. You couldn't want more from people. But for them there was this fear that for the next three years they actually weren't citizens of the same country, because when he became a citizen of Australia he had to renounce the citizenship that she holds. So there's an example of a family with a huge problem—and I'm not quite sure that she will pass the English language test either. She has more than enough language to run her business. I've never had an issue with it. But I'm not sure she will pass it. Level 6 English? Incredibly difficult.
More importantly, perhaps, than any of that is that, when we look at this bill and you look for the evidence on which the government bases their decision to introduce these new barriers requiring people to have permanent residency for four years instead of one, there isn't any. It was basically done because a senator suggested it. If the security agencies were putting forward this idea for national security, we would be very interested in having a briefing on that, but we know that's not the case. There isn't any evidence base for this. There isn't a group of evidence that says that requiring people to be here for four years of permanent residence on top of the period they have been here before will make us safer as a nation. The evidence is not there, and it simply does not recognise who we are.
It's also incredibly lazy. It's lazy policy. If the government believes there is an issue that there are a small number of people—and, again, there's no evidence—who may somehow become citizens in their fifth, sixth and seventh years in Australia and then turn bad whereas if you make them wait another three years that won't happen, surely the government could come up with a plan that looks after the security of the nation and honours the commitment that good people want to make to Australia. Surely the government can come up with something that does both, not one or the other.
What we've got here is a government saying: 'Oh, we're concerned about the security issue. There's no evidence, but, you know, we'll make it tougher to become Australian citizens because a senator said so.' In order to do that they are removing the capacity of good people who in their hearts and minds have committed to Australia from doing so legally. They are actually asking people to wait incredible amounts of time, to put their lives effectively on hold, because they can't seem to do both at once. Surely it's possible to have a system that vets people fully before they get to that stage. Hang on; we already have one. By the time a person gets to permanent residence, they are already vetted over and over again. We already have a system that does that.
So what's this about? Why do we have situations like the Palestinian-born doctor in my electorate who is stateless?
He has resided in Sydney for nine years, he's forged a social research and academic network, he's completed his PhD, he's attracted over $1 million in research grants, he's authored 14 publications, won numerous awards, supervises post-grads and is sponsored for permanent residency by the university. Why can't we have him? What is wrong? Why does he have to wait another three years? There is Jilal, who has been in Australia since 2008 as a PhD student on a full scholarship. He then had three years working as a university teacher and has published multiple scientific papers in the field of nanotechnology and engineering. He and his wife have paid tax for four years and their two kids were born in Australia. They got their permanent residency on 9 March and applied for citizenship on 15 March. There was an error in their application, so it was rejected. They applied again on 24 April. 'Oops! You're out! You have to wait another three years.'
Henry, from Granville, was eligible for citizenship. He had all the paperwork but hadn't lodged it before the government made the announcement. His wife had just had a baby so he didn't get around to lodging it, and, by the way, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's website was down on the two days before the deadline of 20 April. Miraculous, that. So they tried to apply, but couldn't do it. The 20 April date passed and suddenly their application wasn't acceptable.
Sam is of Lebanese descent and his wife has a Syrian passport which expires in 2017. No passport. Why can't these people get their citizenship? Why can't these people commit to the country legally when they have already committed with their hearts and minds and all of their efforts?
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (19:16): I commend my colleague for her speech and asking the absolutely vitally important question here, and that is: why? Why do we need these changes?
I recently attended a community event, a discussion forum on these citizenship changes. It was organised by the Canberra Multicultural Community Forum. It was well attended, with a broad cross-section of views at that event. The fundamental question for everyone who spoke and also for those who responded at that event was, 'Why the changes?' What is the imperative here? What has broken?
Now, the government has not clearly articulated the reason why we need to change this legislation—why we need these changes. It has not clearly articulated what has broken on the English-language test. What is not working that ensures these major changes to the English-language test will see people required to have English at a university standard? What is broken now? What is not working now that requires this new standard of English?
The other question that people were asking was: why the increased length of time before you become a citizen? Again, what is broken here? What is the imperative here? Now, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in answer to a question yesterday, started at citizenship and ranged all over to get to homeland security and the new government agencies that he wants to set up, even though there are mixed feelings about that here in the bureaucracy in Canberra.
He had a number of meanders around the issue but he didn't actually come to the fundamental question that he was asked by someone from his own side, about why there is the need for these citizenship changes. As I said, what has broken on the English-language test? What is not working? What is causing problems in the Australian community—economic problems or social problems—in terms of the English-language test? What is the imperative?
When it comes to the citizenship issue, what is not working there, Minister? What is the imperative here? And, occasionally, because there's been no clear case for these changes—no clear case in terms of why have changes on the English-language test and no clear case on why have changes on the length of time before you can become a citizen—it has been suggested that they are driven by national security issues. Again, who said that?
The minister has not made the case clear on this front. He has not made the case clear on the changes for the English language test and he has not made the case clear in terms of changes to the citizenship requirements. And there are changes that seem to be embellished or buried in this notion that we are doing it for national security reasons. Who said that we need to make these changes to the English language test for citizenship—which government agencies, Minister?
That question was asked in question time yesterday, and the minister was all over the place in terms of his response. What is the imperative, the reason? Why are these changes taking place? In terms of the national security issue, we can't find any government agencies here in Canberra or throughout Australia that have suggested that we need to make these changes. We have been asking for advice from the minister. We have asked him to table the advice, to publicly release the advice, from the Department of Defence, from the Australian Signals Directorate, from the Attorney-General's Department, from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, from Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and from Australian Secret Intelligence Service. Is there advice from these agencies that suggests we need to make these changes to citizenship law? It would be good if there was such advice, because at least people would get an understanding—some reasoning, some rationale—as to why these major changes are affecting people's lives each and every day.
These are major changes that are having life-changing impacts on families right throughout Australia, and this government doesn't care. It doesn't care. It can't be bothered explaining the imperative. It can't be bothered explaining why these changes are being made. It can't be bothered explaining which security agencies, if any, suggested we should make these changes. My view is that there was no security agency making the suggestion that these changes should be made. It was just something that popped up, some thought bubble idea, like so much done by this government: 'Okay, we've got to be seen to be tough on national security issues. We've got to be seen to be tough, so we'll target our citizenship laws and come up with these crazy ideas'—without any consultation. There has been no consultation on these significant changes to policy. You will have an interesting time in your electorates on this issue. If my electorate is any guide, there is a lot of angst and anger and pain and hurt out there.
Mr Fletcher: Your electorate is Canberra! That's no guide.
Ms BRODTMANN: My electorate is a guide. It is a community. This is not—
Mr Fletcher interjecting —
Ms BRODTMANN: No. You are totally out of touch with Australia. Your government is totally out of touch with Australia. Let's not get into that. I'm sure there are many Canberrans listening to this conversation right now and I can go into bat for Canberra all night. What I'm talking about here is Canberrans who are confused, hurt, angered and outraged by the changes this government is making—for no reason, with no explanation and with no clear rationale. These changes are going to have a major effect on the lives of not just Canberrans, but people right across Australia, and those people are rightly outraged. It is one big question mark. This legislation was just dropped—and then nothing. There was the bamboozling, contorted response in question time yesterday, and that was about it. This is like so much done by this government. The thought bubbles get put out there with no explanation. They do not even have the decency to explain why they are doing this. It is just appalling. People are rightly outraged.
If my community, my colleague's community, the member for Parramatta's community—so many of the communities on this side of the chamber—are any indication, then you will have outraged members. And if you are not getting a load of emails on this I would be very surprised. Take the time to actually have a look at your emails rather than getting your staff to look at them.
As I said, I attended this incredibly powerful community forum a few weeks ago that was organised by the multicultural community here in Canberra. These people are outraged; they're hurt; they're angered; they're concerned; they're confused; they're upset—because they don't know why these changes are being made. These changes are going to affect and potentially jeopardise the lives and the futures of their families. Particularly, it is seen by my community as moving the goalposts. People step on a particular trajectory. They make the investment. They come over to Australia. They move their lives over here. They make the investment in establishing their community here, establishing businesses here, establishing their lives and getting their children into schools, and then the goalposts get changed. How fair is that? How welcoming is that? It's breathtaking. Everyone on that side is so glib about these changes, and yet, when you have so many conversations with those people, their stories are tragic.
I am just going to read out a few of them. One is a letter that I received from Robert. He is a British citizen and an Australian permanent resident. He says: 'Although, as a noncitizen of Australia I do not have a vote'—he lives in Theodore, in the south of my electorate—'I have been continuously and legally in Australia as X's partner and now husband since 14 December 2012. During that time, both as part of my commitment to X and to my new country, I have been working towards citizenship'—doing the right thing. He goes on: 'I would have been eligible under general eligibility rules to apply for citizenship on 4 June this year, but as of 20 April, via ministerial fiat pending retrospective legislation, I find that I must wait another three years even to apply. I consider this to be unjust'—as I do too, Robert. He continues: 'My loyalty is to this country, and I'm proud to say that I'm an excellent resident and uphold and abide by Australian values, but this legislation will exclude me and many like me from fully participating in the life and democratic process of our new country.'
Robert explains what so many people—people from every country across the world who are living here in Australia—are going through at the moment and the challenges that they are facing. What is really insidious about this is the fact that the citizenship applications have been stopped. They've been put on hold by the department. From what I can gather—and I'm hearing from a number of people across the community—people have got their citizenship process underway, and everything has been put on ice. Even though this legislation hasn't been passed, nothing is being processed. People have done the right thing; they've got their applications in the system, and yet the whole thing's been put on ice, because the department is obviously waiting for this legislation to come into play.
The legislation hasn't been enacted, so why is everything on ice? Why is the department going slow on this? These people have done the right thing. They've got their processes going; they've got their applications in the system, and yet they've just been completely stalled. It's absolutely outrageous. This legislation has not been passed, and yet these people's applications have been put on ice. How fair is that?
I don't have much time left, but I want to now turn my attention to the submission that the ACT multicultural council made on these changes. The submission came out of a forum that they held in June that was very well attended. They expressed a number of concerns. Also I want to reflect some of the views that were passed on at that forum. A community leader pointed out that most older migrants over 50 will be unable to pass the new English language requirements. They're very concerned about the extent of ministerial discretion, which is perceived by the migrant community as an effort to stop people from non-English-speaking ethnic communities to migrate to Australia. There are significant challenges here with students who have come to Australia to study who are now on temporary graduate visas. There are real questions here about this term 'patriotism' that is being floated around. What does that mean? What values are going to be changed? As you know, there are pledges made by new citizens. What values are going to be changed there?
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ) (19:30): It being 7:30, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Vietnam: Human Rights
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (19:30): Recently I had the pleasure of attending the 11th anniversary of Bloc 81706, a remarkable organisation dedicated to the cause of human rights in Vietnam. I congratulate Bloc 81706, in particular Joachim and his wife, Bao Khanh, for their tireless work in raising awareness of the ongoing struggle for freedom, democracy and respect for human rights for the people of Vietnam. In Vietnam today, bloggers, journalists, lawyers, religious leaders are being harassed, arrested, imprisoned all for drawing attention to human rights violations. We see a Vietnamese government virtually suppressing any attempt by its citizens to exercise basic freedoms of speech, expression, rights of association and assembly.
Marred by a judicial system that fails to operate without fear or favour, the Vietnamese people do not get a fair go in the courts. The severity of this situation was highlighted in a recent report issued by Human Rights Watch entitled No Country for Human Rights Activists: Assaults on Bloggers and Democracy Campaigners in Vietnam. The report reveals an alarming 36 incidents in which men dressed in civilian clothes targeted and assaulted human rights activists and bloggers between January 2015 and April this year, with many of the cases resulting in serious injury. What is more concerning is that many of these attacks occurred in front of uniformed police officers, who failed to intervene.
Interestingly, in respect of all but one case, Human Rights Watch found that no-one had been charged. This poses a very serious question as to the relationship between the Vietnamese authorities and the assailants in these cases, which appears to range from passive tolerance to active collaboration. These attacks highlight a disturbing trend in physical assaults on activists by attackers who appear to act at the discretion of, or at least with the acquiescence of Vietnamese officials. This trend signals a move away from the government's reliance on police and judicial repression to effectively a new form of extra judicial repression to enforce their tight control over its citizens. Speaking about this emerging trend, Brad Adams, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch said, 'It is bad enough for activists in Vietnam to have to risk prison for speaking out but now they have to risk their safety on a daily basis simply for exercising basic human rights.'
The Formosa Ha Tinh Steel environmental disaster which occurred some 12 months ago saw dead fish being washed up on the shores of central Vietnam and devastating local fishing communities. It was not just the environmental impacts that grabbed global headlines but also the victimisation of activists campaigning about the environmental impacts of the toxic waste dumping and the need for just compensation for those communities reliant on the fishing industry. Two Catholic priests, Father Dang Huu Nam and Father Nguyen Dinh Thuc have been subjected to harassment and intimidation by officials because of their involvement in the campaign for justice for those who rely on the fishing industry. Just recently, I have been informed that a blogger, Ms Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh has been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for her activism in drawing attention to this environmental scandal.
During periods of trade negotiations such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, there seems to be a downturn in the prosecution of human right activists in Vietnam as the country's human rights activity obviously features very significantly in these discussions. However, following these discussions, Vietnam always reverts to tightening its control and, over recent years, there has been a very clear indication that Vietnam is making no attempt to honour its domestic and international human rights obligations. This is the same sign-and-forget mentality that they showed when they signed off on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
As Australians, we are fortunate that our courts and our police operate without fear or favour, but it is not the same for the people of Vietnam. Once again, I congratulate Joachim and Boa Khanh and Bloc 1706 for their advocacy and support for people in Vietnam experiencing human rights abuses.
Employment
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (19:35): Job creation and economic growth are two things which are the core business of the Turnbull government. As the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment have said repeatedly, this government understands that the best form of welfare is a job.
The latest figures from the ABS released just a few weeks ago showed that more Australians are in employment than ever before. A record 12,166,900 Australians are employed. A record 8,356,000 Australians are in full-time employment. Our employment figures have grown over the past nine months. Full-time employment has risen by 166,700 to the end of June—the largest increase in full-time employment in the first half of a year on record. Last financial year was the strongest financial year in terms of jobs growth that the country has seen since the global financial crisis. Since we were elected, more than 700,000 jobs have been created. Over 50 per cent of these have been full-time jobs. Additionally, there were over 175,000 job advertisements in June—the highest since mid-2011. Consumer confidence has risen 12 per cent since mid-September 2015, and retail sales were up around two per cent on the previous financial year.
These figures are not coincidental. The record employment figures are borne out of four years of sound economic management, giving business the confidence to grow. And they are the ones delivering jobs across Australia, especially in regional and rural areas.
The Turnbull government's Youth Jobs PaTH is further evidence of this. Over 5,000 young Australians aged 15 to 24 are now employed as a result of PaTH, with 25 of these in the South West, and of course there will be many more ahead. This is just the beginning of this excellent initiative. Prospective employees aren't the only winners out of PaTH, with businesses eligible for the Youth Bonus Wage Subsidy of up to $10,000 to assist them in taking on the extra staff they need to help grow their businesses.
Following the years of wasteful spending by the Labor government, the Liberal-led government's free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China are some of the reasons for the agricultural drivers that we see so often in rural and regional Australia. This is the focus of the coalition government.
Last week, along with the Prime Minister, I announced $1.5 million towards the Busselton foreshore redevelopment. This project will not only create jobs and economic growth; it will help to take Busselton towards being a world-class waterfront destination. These are the sorts of projects that foster economic growth. The Busselton jetty is the second-most-visited tourist attraction in Western Australia, and this will encourage further investment.
I also announced significant funding of over $2.3 million for the final stage of the Capel Civic Precinct, a multipurpose community centre and youth space. It will be a lively hub for youth leisure, recreation and other activities. The Busselton-Margaret River airport upgrade is a transformative project in the South West which will open up the region to international and domestic tourists and freight and allow the region to reach more of its potential. The federal government committed over $9.73 million towards this project, and I cannot emphasise enough how significant this project is. I urge the state Labor government to honour the Barnett government's funding of over $56 million for the project. Every dollar counts towards what will be a quality delivery of service for everyone who comes into this region.
We know that this government is the best friend that small business has had, cutting taxes for businesses with a turnover of less than $50 million, helping to keep us internationally competitive. We have extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off for small businesses with a turnover of $10 million until the end of this financial year. It's no wonder the country has record full-time employment and the largest increase in full-time employment in the first half of a calendar year. Governments don't create jobs, businesses do; but they need the right drivers from government to be able to do so. It is the Turnbull government that is creating the economic environment which, with the growing population, is seeing more people in work, more people in full-time employment and more people in small businesses having a go. (Time expired)
Kingston Electorate: Winter Appeal
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (19:40): Today I rise to acknowledge the enormous generosity of my local community during my recent winter appeal. Each winter my office acts as a drop-off point for donations of food, knitted beanies, blankets, scarves, toiletries and animal feed. The donations go to vulnerable members in our local community who are struggling during the cooler months.
This year I have been absolutely overwhelmed by the generosity of our community. Over 85 individuals and 20 community groups have brought in donations. There have been thousands of items of food, hundreds of blankets, hundreds of items of clothing and hundreds of toiletries. We estimate that the value of donations made to our appeal is approximately $15,000.
I would like to acknowledge the many individuals who were not well-off themselves but gave what they could to help those less fortunate. Throughout the appeal, there were some truly heart-warming stories. I would like to share them with the House tonight. Marina, a pensioner, brought in a donation each fortnight when she received her pension payment. She is only on a pension. Each fortnight she brought something in. Lojsika, an 87-year-old woman who is unwell and bed bound, spent weeks lying in her bed knitting items to donate. Michael and Debbie Clarke brought an entire boot full of donations for animals at the RSPCA. They wanted to help the RSPCA but said they would be too upset to visit. So they felt that coming to our office was the right thing to do.
I would like to acknowledge the Aldinga Spinners Knitters Weavers and Felters, who dedicated weeks and weeks to knitting beautiful blankets, scarves and beanies. Year 5 students Maddie and Natalia, from Sheidow Park School, organised a huge amount of donations from students and families at the school. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Women's Association, in the south, needed a van to bring in all their donations—118 members of their association donated boxes and boxes of food. Stepping Stone Morphett Vale Childcare & Early Development Centre do Christmas in July. Instead of bringing gifts, they brought in donations to put under the tree.
There were other stories. A gentleman and his wife came in very emotional. He said he knew what it was like to be very poor. Even though he isn't well-off now, he wanted to bring in something to help others. They brought in a couple of cans and packets of chips but wanted to stay anonymous because he did not want to do it for the thanks. Then there was another older gentleman who brought in a lot of sanitary items because he thought it was unfair that women should have to pay for them. I would also like to acknowledge Wakefield House, who brought in donations almost weekly. The members at Wakefield House, which is a community centre for older people in our community, always have huge baskets and boxes of donations which have been donated by members of the community and volunteers who use Wakefield House. And then there was Kirsty and Parker. Kirsty came in to make some donations. Parker is her three-year-old son, and she was showing him the importance of giving to people in need. He was really excited to come in and give us the donations. This was just so heart-warming.
I would like to acknowledge all the community groups and individuals who donated: Ahmadiyya Muslim Women's Association of Adelaide; Aldinga Spinners Knitters Weavers and Felters; Days for Girls; Emu Community Children's Centre; Girl Guides of Seaford; Goodstart Early Learning Old Reynella; Hills Limited; Linking Southern Seniors Club; Lions Club of Hallett Cove & Districts; McLaren Vale Bowling Club; ACH Seniors; Meals on Wheels Hallett Cove; Minton Farm Animal Rescue Centre; Port Noarlunga Bowling Club; Rivers Morphett Vale; Rotary Club of Noarlunga; Sheidow Park School; Stepping Stone Morphett Vale Childcare & Early Development Centre; Wakefield House; Woodcroft Medical Centre; Woodend Children's Centre; Zonta Club of Noarlunga Southern Vales; and all those individuals who gave. Thank you. Your donations will help many in need. They will go to Anglicare at Christies Beach; St Vincent de Paul Noarlunga conference; Vines Uniting Church; Junction Australia at Christies Beach; the Flinders Foundation, particularly the volunteers who look after the premmie babies; and the RSPCA. From the bottom of my heart, I was moved and I thank you.
Toowoomba Second Range Crossing
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (19:45): Last week I had lengthy and detailed inspections of the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing construction with Trevor Watts MP, the state LNP member for Toowoomba North, in whose seat most of the work is taking place. I note, of course, the neighbouring state LNP electorate of Lockyer and the electorate of Condamine, represented by Pat Weir, who, under the local leadership of Trevor, has been a key supporter of the project to its fruition and now its construction. From a federal perspective, it spans the electorates of Groom, which is my electorate, and Wright, which is represented by my good friend Scott Buchholz. I thank the Nexus construction consortium for facilitating our visit.
We saw the magnificent viaduct being constructed off the edge of the Toowoomba range along the Blue Mountain Heights escarpment into the Lockyer Valley, which will be a significant geographical feature for our region in the years to come. It is truly a tremendous sight to see. I inspected earlier this year with the Prime Minister and Minister Chester a significant culvert being cut through the top of the range, and other bridges and overpasses that are already under way.
It is a $1.6 billion project, with 80 per cent funded by the federal government and 20 per cent by the state government. It is the biggest inland road project in Australia. It involves 1,800 direct and indirect jobs during its design and construction. It will bring improved road safety, reduced travel time and greater efficiencies for transport through our part of the world and freight delivered through to the eastern seaboard and beyond. The project is 41 kilometres in length as it skirts Toowoomba to the north and to the west. It will be adjacent to inland rail as that is completed through our region, our new international airport and the existing western rail line, and it has linkages to the New England, Warrego and Gore Highways. That just emphasises the importance, from a logistical perspective, of this major piece of infrastructure.
Much work has gone into the background behind this project. As our Toowoomba Regional Council mayor, Paul Antonio, quite rightly reflects, it has been talked about for many, many decades. Over those years, successive local councils—both Toowoomba regional councils and, prior to that, Toowoomba city councils—have actively advocated for its construction. But in the end it took the alignment of Toowoomba Regional Council, a state LNP government and the federal coalition government to actually bring it to fruition. My predecessor, Ian Macfarlane, was a great leader in the process and his untiring efforts in steering that process cannot be underestimated. In early 2014, the deal was finally done, with a signed funding agreement between the federal coalition and state LNP governments.
Under federal and state Labor, it was never a priority. The facts simply reveal that it was not prioritised under Labor and it was never promoted as a nationally significant project. I therefore find it absolutely astounding that state Labor—particularly, the perennial Labor candidate for the state seat of Toowoomba North—has the gall to belatedly claim the project as their own. This is a nation-building project and an example of true commitment from this side of the House towards fair dinkum infrastructure development, especially in regional areas. It is progressing very, very well, on schedule and on budget. It will be completed in late 2018.
Make no mistake: the facts are that it's been brought about by a coalition government working with the state LNP government in Queensland. I know that because, in early 2014, it was the former Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss who signed the deal for the Commonwealth, and it was I, as the then acting Treasurer for Queensland, who signed the deal for the LNP state government, to the great advantage of our part of the world.
Calwell Electorate: Assyrian Community
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (19:50): I rise to welcome the bishop for the newly created Diocese of Victoria and New Zealand for the Assyrian Christians, His Grace Mar Benyamin Elya of the Assyrian Church of the East. I want to congratulate my local Assyrian community on the official consecration of their bishop, which was held at St Abdisho's church in Coolaroo on Sunday, 16 July and followed by a dinner reception at Taylors Lakes in my electorate of Calwell, which was attended by my colleague the shadow Treasurer and member for McMahon, the Hon. Chris Bowen. I want to thank him for coming to Calwell on this very special occasion, and I want to acknowledge that he shares with me a very large Assyrian community in his own seat of McMahon, and he has been a dynamic advocate for the rights of the Assyrian Christian community.
The guest of honour at this testimonial dinner was His Holiness Mar Gewargis III, the Patriarch of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. The dinner was attended by clergy from the Assyrian Church of the East and their sister churches in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Iran, places in the world where the Assyrian communities live and have thrived.
The Assyrian church of the east is one of the world's most ancient Christian communions. Its liturgy employs the Syriac dialect of Eastern Aramaic, and historically it has been centred in Iraq, eastern Syria, south-eastern Turkey and north-western Iran, areas which today correspond to the geographical area of ancient Assyria. The church exists in greatest numbers today in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon but also in Europe, America, Australia and India.
Assyrians are one of the world's most persecuted indigenous minority communities. Persecution has been their plight for centuries, and sadly it continues today. Since 2003, they have been victims of persecution in Iraq and Syria at the hands of ISIS and other terrorist groups. Along with other Christian minorities, they have borne the brunt of the ongoing persecution of Christians in the Middle East. The United States government has designated them to have been victims of a modern-day genocide. Assyrians have been the largest intake group under Australia's refugee resettlement program.
The appointment of a bishop, therefore, to lead them in Victoria is the result of the massive growth in this community. For the Assyrian Christian community, in my electorate of Calwell especially, this is a very important achievement. During my time as the member for Calwell, I have seen my local Assyrian community develop, integrate and grow from strength to strength. As one of Australia's fastest growing refugee communities, they are the electorate of Calwell's strongest migrant community. They have integrated into our community successfully, and the more established members of the community are now helping the more recently arrived integrate and find their way through our local community.
Assyrian community members, particularly refugees who have recently arrived in Calwell from Iraq and Syria, have noted that their new bishop is a symbol of hope for the maintenance of the distinct history, language, culture and faith of the indigenous Assyrians in their newfound home, Australia. His Grace's appointment will also build on the establishment of the Assyrian Church of the East in Victoria, which began in the mid 1970s. The Assyrian community has worked actively in pursuit of religious, cultural and social initiatives. Now, of course, with the consecration of a new bishop, the community is hopeful that His Grace will give leadership to new projects and initiatives that continue to build on the progress made by the Assyrian Church of the East in Victoria.
At this point, I want to congratulate all of the organisers involved in this event. In particular, I want to pay tribute Councillor Joseph Haweil, who is one of my local councillors at the Hume City Council, who was in fact elected just under a year ago as the first local government councillor of Assyrian background in Victoria. I want to thank Joseph for the amount of work that he does in our local community to assist the Assyrian community. I want to finish by quoting what Joseph had to say about the new bishop. He said: 'I feel a sense of great pride that the community in which I was raised has matured, grown and continues to progress. For the community, I feel that having such a leader here brings gravitas and prominence.'
Verwayen, Mr Bernie, OAM JP
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (19:55): Last Thursday, I had the great privilege and pleasure of calling upon the Mooloolah Community Centre as part of my listening post and as part of getting out amongst my community, as most members do, over the winter period. I met with four outstanding individuals when I walked into the office of the Mooloolah Community Centre. I heard this voice, and the voice said, 'Attention on deck!' I turned around, and I saw an elderly gentleman sitting at his desk. He had a big woolly beard, and I said, 'Sir, you must've served in the Navy.' He said, 'As a matter of fact, I did.' I asked him what ship he served on and he said, 'HMAS Voyager.' I said, 'Voyager? Were you on the Voyager when she went down?' And he said, 'I was.' I said, 'There was a famous case about that very incident. Every law student and every lawyer in the country would know the case. It was the case of the Commonwealth v Verwayen.' I said, 'Are you familiar with the case?' And he said, 'My name is Bernie Verwayen.'
It's not very often that you get to meet a legend in this job. I can say that Bernie Verwayen is an absolute legend. I just want to take this opportunity to remind the House about the struggle that Bernie undertook following the days and years after the Voyager disaster. On 10 February 1964, a collision took place between HMAS Voyager and HMAS Melbourne, just off the coast of Jervis Bay. The two vessels were taking part in exercises. The role of the Voyager was to stand off some 1,000 to 1,500 yards to assist if there were any rescues required on the Melbourne. The Voyager was not engaged in any military manoeuvres as such. There was nothing inherently dangerous in taking up the position that it did. When ordered to take up its position, the Voyager initially turned away from the Melbourne as expected, but then, shortly afterward, for reasons which are still unclear, she turned toward the Melbourne. By the time that both ships realised that they would collide, it was too late. The Melbourne struck the Voyager and cut the much smaller destroyer in half, just behind the bridge. The forward section, where Bernie Verwayen was asleep, sank in under 10 minutes. Of the 314 people on board the Voyager, 82 men died: 14 officers, 67 sailors and one civilian worker.
After two royal commissions and considerable speculation, the exact cause of the collision is still not known. Bernie was serving on the Voyager as a leading electrical mechanic. He was badly injured that night trying to get out of the front section, which had capsized, before it sank. He claimed his injuries were the result of negligence of officers and crews of one or both ships. He didn't submit a statement of claim until November 1984, 20 years after the event. This was because legal opinion at the time was that members of the Defence Force couldn't sue the Commonwealth for alleged negligence. In 1982, a decision of the High Court rejected that interpretation. In 1984, Bernie's lawyers wrote to the Department of Defence, and, in effect, the department said, 'We won't rely on the statute of limitations, because it's been such a long time.' The Commonwealth resiled from that position, and the Supreme Court of Victoria decided in favour of the Commonwealth and basically rejected Bernie's claim. Ultimately, that went to the Full Court of the Supreme Court, which rejected the decision, and the Commonwealth appealed again to the High Court. The High Court ultimately dismissed that appeal and allowed the trial to go ahead.
Bernie Verwayen did not stop. He battled, he fought, against the Commonwealth. It is a great example of the man in the street not taking a backward step. He was awarded, in 2013, the Order of Australia for his services to veterans and their families. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Bernie, you're a legend. Thank you very much.
House adjourned at 20:01
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Frydenberg to present a bill for an act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and for related purposes. (Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017)
Mr Frydenberg to present a bill for an act to improve air quality by regulating emissions from certain products, and for related purposes. (Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017)
Mr Frydenberg to present a bill for an act to deal with consequential matters in relation to the enactment of the Product Emissions Standards Act 2017, and for related purposes. (Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017)
Ms O'Dwyer to present a bill for an act to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, and for related purposes. (International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017)
Mrs KL Andrews to present a bill for an act to amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, and for related purposes. (Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017)
Mr Fletcher to move:
That the following order of the day, government business, be discharged: Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility) Bill 2017: Second reading—Resumption of debate.
Ms Sharkie to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Cystic Fibrosis is a condition that causes impairment of the lungs, airways and digestive system and leaves sufferers with an average life expectancy of 37 years;
(b) over 3,000 Australians live with Cystic Fibrosis and every four days an Australian child is born with the condition;
(c) over one million Australians are carriers of the gene that causes Cystic Fibrosis;
(d) there is currently an application before the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule Advisory Committee (PBSAC) for the drug known as Orkambi which is used to treat the most common mutation of Cystic Fibrosis; and
(e) if approved, Orkambi will be available to over 1,000 Australians aged 12 and over who are currently suffering from this life shortening condition; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) continue to support research into Cystic Fibrosis and its possible cure; and
(b) expedite the PBSAC review of the application to have Orkambi listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme so that over 1,000 Australians can have access to a potentially lifesaving drug.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Hinkler Electorate
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (10:00): While the same-sex marriage continues to rage in the press, I'd like to put to the House the issues that are being brought forward to my electorate office in Hinkler, and these are issues the government is acting on. In terms of power and gas, and these are matters of incredible importance, there is a laundry in Hervey Bay whose operators advised me last week that they have had a 30 per cent from their gas provider, with no notice. This is a laundry which employs over 100 people in my electorate, where I have an unemployment rate of some nine per cent across the board and over 20 per cent youth unemployment. It is unacceptable that this continues to happen.
The Red Shed, a family-owned seafood business, has had its power bill quadruple over 13 years. It used to be $987 a month; it is now $4,000 a month. They put in $68,000 worth of solar, and the tariff just went up 25 per cent. They simply cannot continue to operate with those energy costs. I have pensioners—and these are real stories—who came in to my office and say that they turn their fridge off, trying to save energy at night-time, when it is cooler, at the risk of all sorts of health problems. These are simply unacceptable positions.
On the cashless debit card, we are engaging with the community on this important, although sometimes difficult, change. We want to ensure that families and children in particular have the essentials of life and that we can attempt to break intergenerational welfare, which is a real problem in my electorate. We do have strong support from the community for the card. We cannot continue to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. The local Labor members are organising rallies against the card, but they are not putting up other options. They are not putting forward any other proposals. So we continue to consult with the community.
But we are delivering jobs. There is good news on the horizon for jobs. In the last round of the Building Better Regions Fund, $16.3 million was delivered to my electorate for three projects: a marine precinct at Burnett Heads port, an upgrade to Burnett Heads town centre and a local health provider, IWC—building more infrastructure. So $50 million of infrastructure will result from the injection of $16 million in funds. According to proponents, that will bring more than a thousand jobs into our local region—long-term, highly skilled, well-paid positions, which we desperately need. The NDIS rollout is underway, of course. It will bring 600 jobs to the Bundaberg region, and more than 1000 into Maryborough, which is part of Fraser Coast. So there are real job opportunities in the future.
We have been out supporting veterans. I was at Camp Gregory, which is a Vietnam veterans retreat down on the Gregory River, and it was great to see the work that they are doing and how passionate they are about the local veterans community. It is quite an incredible place to visit. I would certainly recommend, if you have the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, to come to my electorate, go to the Gregory River and see the guys at Camp Gregory. It is a fantastic opportunity for veterans, and I congratulate them on the work that they have done.
Grayndler Electorate: WestConnex
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (10:03): Recently we have seen on display for my electorate and for all residents of New South Wales, and indeed Australia, some of the mentality the coalition has with regard to respect for people and, in particular, respect for young people. The impact of the WestConnex project has been substantial on students at schools like St Peters Public School, which is in close proximity to the major St Peters interchange project. It's also had a big impact on Haberfield Public School, which is close to the end of the current work that is taking place—extending the M4 and then the continuation of that on to Rozelle. We have seen Rozelle Public School being, quite rightly, very concerned about the proximity of an exhaust stack on Victoria Road to the students and school community at the school.
All of those concerns have been dismissed by the state government. Yet when, for the Northern Beaches tunnel, it was suggested that there might be a stack anywhere near a school on the North Shore of Sydney, the minister, Rob Stokes, intervened to say that would be unacceptable; the state government intervened to say that would be unacceptable. My message to the state government and to those responsible for the WestConnex project is simply this: students' capacities should not be limited by pollution near their schools, and students should be given the same consideration whether they live in a Labor electorate, an electorate held by the Greens Party, or an electorate held by the Liberal Party. It is on display for all to see.
The contemptuous nature of the state government under Gladys Berejiklian and the way they handled community consultation and processes for the WestConnex project will be studied in future years as an example of how not to do infrastructure planning for a major project. This is a project where they are literally making it up as they go along. I stand with the school communities in my electorate, including Rozelle Public School, in saying that proper solutions need to be found which protect the interests of students and the community.
Bennelong Electorate: Stronger Communities Program
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (10:06): The Stronger Communities Program delivers real benefits to many local organisations. Round 3 is now open. The first two rounds have already provided $300,000 over two years to every electorate in the country and by the end of this year that rises to $450,000. This federal funding aims to improve local participation and cohesion and contribute to development of an even more vibrant Bennelong community. If any community group within Bennelong has a project that needs doing but there's not enough in the budget to get it done, then they should immediately apply. My office will accept expressions of interest to the end of this week. These grants are available to local organisations to fund tangible new infrastructure projects within Bennelong to deliver positive benefits.
I have assembled a local infrastructure committee of local community champions, which will ensure these grants will go where they can do the most good for our community. Under their leadership past rounds of these grants have had wonderful results. The highlight would be the $20,000 provided to our local special needs school, Karonga. This will allow them to put in a wheelchair ramp which will lead up to their tennis courts—a very important sport—and sports fields, allowing all students to get out and get active. They will now have access to sport, which is a critical part of every child's development. Epping Boys High has received a grant for their kitchen cafe, a wonderful initiative that teaches students barista skills and helps many stay on track. Morrison Bay will have lights under the scheme, allowing more people to take part in community sport. Our local community radio station, 2RRR, will get a well-deserved upgrade of its ageing equipment. Christian Community Aid will use the grant to set up a mobile playgroup to help grandparents, foster parents and others who often need support in raising children. The Eastwood Occasional Child Care Centre was able to update and modernise their outdoor play area.
Without this type of grant such projects would always be left lower down the priority list, resulting in them potentially never being completed. Churches, childcare centres, schools, charities and many other fantastic community groups will benefit from this excellent federal grants scheme. This program has the power to transform the community for the better by allowing local groups to expand, reach more people and flourish. I would encourage all local groups to apply in the remaining few days so we can build a stronger community.
Macarthur Electorate: Macarthur Chronicle
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (10:09): News corporations is not a windmill that I particularly want to tilt at, but today I rise to advocate the local newspapers that are under threat around the country and particularly our local newspaper in Campbelltown in the Macarthur region, the Macarthur Chronicle, one of the two weekly print newspapers in my electorate. The Macarthur Chronicle has been providing the community with in-depth local news since 1984, the year I started working as a paediatrician in Campbelltown. Its editorial team, led by Campbelltown local Mandy Perrin, provides an incredibly valuable insight into and service to our community.
It's recently been announced that News Corp is moving many of its local newspapers, including the Macarthur Chronicle, which covers an area from Tahmoor to Ingleburn, out of their local offices and into a centralised Sydney location. For the Macarthur Chronicle that means being disconnected from our local area and the local news and getting rid of local jobs. For the residents in my electorate of Macarthur it means losing the 'local' from their local newspaper. There is no way local news can be covered from offices in the centre of Sydney. What the bosses at the big news corporations like News Corp do not understand is that the local newspapers represent far more than money in the bank. They represent a sense of community. The Macarthur Chronicle is certainly one of those newspapers. It's won awards in the past and has been nominated again as one of the local newspapers of the year. Local newspapers represent a sense of community. They build an identity for our community. Moving their offices out of local areas will destroy this. Maybe that's the point. The Macarthur Chronicle is not a dying, unread local newspaper. It won the Australian Community Newspaper of the Year Award in 2014. In true Macarthur Chronicle fashion, it dedicated the award to the people of the region. The editor of the Macarthur Chronicle, Mandy Perrin, summed up the ethos of the paper pretty well in saying:
Our team of journalists and photographers do more than report the news; they strive to make our community an even better place.
And, indeed, they do. For Mandy and her team, the Macarthur Chronicle is not just a job; it's their way of giving back to their community. They are all locals. They deliver the news while displaying the best that Macarthur has to offer because they want the community to be proud of their area and proud of their newspaper.
They've started a petition calling on News Corp to keep the Macarthur Chronicle offices in Campbelltown. The petition has received hundreds of signatures and they have had hundreds of phone calls of support. It's very clear to me that the people of Macarthur care deeply about their local newspaper. They want it to stay local. I will do everything I can to keep this great resource and local provider of jobs in Campbelltown.
Bhat, Ms Asha
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (10:12): I rise today to congratulate Asha Bhat, CEO of the Southern Aboriginal Corporation in Albany, on being selected to participate in the prestigious Global Ambassadors Program in Chicago next month. This program brings together 11 women leaders from all over the world to work with a cohort of established US women executives from a range of sectors and organisations for a week of mentorship. This program aims to address the needs and challenges facing women leaders engaged in the private sector, social enterprise and not-for-profits. It underscores the critical function that women play in moving local economies forward and highlights their role as the drivers of innovation and socioeconomic growth.
Asha is a successful new Australian who continues to make a real contribution to the Indigenous community in the great southern region of my electorate of O'Connor. She's been a role model as a migrant, woman and leader of a major regional NGO. Asha came to Australia from India as a skilled mathematics teacher determined to make her mark in her new home. She holds a master's degree and a bachelor's degree in mathematics, business and accounting. She's currently working towards her MBA through a Kaplan Business School MBA scholarship. Asha became a permanent resident in 2004 and an Australian citizen in 2006. She moved to Albany with her husband and son in 2008.
Since my election in 2013, I have been privileged to be involved in Asha's efforts to achieve better outcomes for the Noongar community in the great southern. As CEO of the Southern Aboriginal Corporation, Asha leads the provision of programs in Indigenous training and employment, family violence prevention, and advocacy and legal support. SAC also runs health promotions and an affordable housing program which services over 500 Aboriginal people in the south-west of my electorate. Last month Asha spearheaded a highly successful Aboriginal students careers expo and late last year convened an Aboriginal drugs forum that was opened by the Minister for Indigenous Health, the Hon. Ken Wyatt, at my invitation. Under Asha's leadership, Southern Aboriginal Corporation has received accolades such as the prestigious Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry Community Business of the Year Award in 2016.
Asha's contribution extends way beyond her work for the Southern Aboriginal Corporation. She also sits on many local not-for-profit boards and committees. Currently she is the treasurer of Albany Worklink, vice-president of the Albany Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a board member of WA No Interest Loans and she sits on the regional committee of the Community Housing Industry Association. Her dedication to her community earned her the City of Albany Citizen of the Year award in 2017. Asha could not be more deserving of this opportunity to travel to the US to engage with and learn from other women leaders around the world. She is the sole representative chosen from Australia for this next Global Ambassadors Program. I could not be more proud of her achievements thus far. I look forward to the enhanced skillset that she will be bringing back to O'Connor to continue her valuable contribution to our community. Congratulations, Asha.
Energy
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:15): People in Melbourne as well as many people right around the country are feeling the pinch of higher electricity bills. If you ever want any evidence that the system is broken and that governments just do whatever big corporations say, you need look no further than your own electricity bill. In Victoria, where we have had deregulation the longest, electricity retailers are now twice as profitable as they used to be. They are making, on average, 13 per cent profit compared with six per cent when it was regulated. When you look at what people are paying in those states across Australia where electricity prices are deregulated, in South Australia, in New South Wales, in Victoria, in South-East Queensland, you find they are paying more than people pay in the UK, more than they pay across the European Union, and a big part of it—a big part—is that the retailers have been let off the leash and allowed to charge whatever they want. In the ACT, if you are on the cheapest power bill, a typical household will pay $1,325 in 2016. Cross the border into unregulated, Liberal-run New South Wales and your power bill could go up to $3,430—the same amount of electrons, the same amount of electricity, and for a typical household you could be paying up to two or three times as much.
These power companies are now making in the order of $2 billion a year in profit. These are not the companies generating the power; they are not the ones in charge of the poles and wires getting it to our households. These are just the retailers sitting on the end who are creaming huge amounts of profit off and as a result people are paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more than other people in Australia where their state or territory governments have regulated power prices. It's all well and good for the Prime Minister to talk publicly about putting these companies to the sword, but then he brings them in, in private, and flogs them with a wet lettuce. There is one thing this government could do that would make a difference, and that is take the lead from the ACT, take the lead from Tasmania, step in and reregulate power prices, because it is time to admit that deregulation has failed. Deregulation has failed—you see it in your power bills in Victoria, you see it in your power bills in New South Wales and you see it in South Australia.
For those who say it's all about renewable energy, well renewable energy charges might make up about seven-odd percent of your bill but in Victoria retailers' profits alone can make up up to 30 per cent of your power bill. Why are people paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars just so that these big retailers can make profits? Bring back pricing under public control. The Greens are prepared to stand up to these big companies. Enough talk from the Prime Minister—give the power companies until the end of the year to reregulate their prices and if not step in and do it yourself.
Goldstein Electorate: Apprenticeship and Traineeship Employment Partners
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (10:18): Today I would like to thank the Apprenticeship and Traineeship Employment Partners organisation for inviting me to speak recently at their annual awards night. They do an excellent job in providing skills, training and employment for young people across the great south-eastern corridor of Melbourne and down to the Mornington Peninsula, in the great state of Victoria. ATEP was founded in 1987 by Neil Hamilton and Geoff Cockram to help battle the serious problem of rising youth unemployment in Victoria. They started by providing training and skills to young people and then connected them as part-time apprentices to small businesses who could not afford to take on full-time apprentices.
The incredible success of this organisation is self-evident. Since 1987, ATEP have helped employ over 4,000 apprentices and trainees. I was honoured to be invited to the ATEP awards night a couple of weeks ago. I would like to recognise the winners of the ATEP awards and thank them for their service to the Goldstein community and to the broader Melbourne community. First, Matej-John Urbach-Gugich from Korumburra Secondary College was the winner of the best Schools Based Apprenticeship and Traineeship Community Project. Lachlan Lampard, from Marnebek School, won the SBAT 2016 Encouragement Award Community Project.
These school based apprenticeships and traineeships are a smart way to help increase employment opportunities for young people. Apprenticeships and traineeships combine paid part-time work with finishing a student's schooling so that young people can get the skills they need to succeed in the workforce and also benefit from their high school education. I would like to congratulate Jay Cottle, who is the year's recipient of the Mal Foster Memorial Award for Best Overall Apprentice. Finally, we must thank the host businesses, who are vitally important in providing the employment for our trainees, and, in particular, the winner of the Neil Hamilton Honorary Award for the Host Employer of the Year, Stegbar.
I am proud of the work that ATEP and their host employers do to provide training and employment for the people in the Goldstein electorate and across Melbourne and Victoria. I again congratulate all the winners and the nominees on their amazing work. In the end, the point of ATEP is to help get people into jobs and provide them with opportunities. I would hope that, regardless of the divisions and views in this chamber and the other place, every member and every senator commits themselves to helping young people invest in their own future so that they are able to build the type of life that they want as the foundation for the type of country we want to be—one where we recognise thrift, responsibility and hard work and where people are properly honoured and respected. Every single trainee and every single apprentice who participates in the ATEP program contributes to the foundation of our nation's great success.
Solomon Electorate: Fishing
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (10:21): Fishing is more than a pastime in the Northern Territory, it's a way of life. It's an opportunity to unwind, connect with friends and family and enjoy our magnificent outdoors. That's why it was great to celebrate the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Recreational Fishers this morning. I am proud to be a co-founder and I am also glad that a group now exists for those out there, those fellow Australians, who love fishing.
Fishing is not just a great pastime. Fishing gives an opportunity to reach out and connect with mates. This morning we heard about the fantastic fly program. I would like to commend to the House the director of the fly program, Matt Tripet. The program uses fly fishing as a way to get people to unwind, relax, be with friends and talk about what's going on in their life, while they are fly fishing on a river somewhere. It was great to see the huge amount of support from our parliamentary colleagues for the establishment of this group, and we look forward to conducting events into the future.
Everyone in the House would know the price of fish. Would you believe if it if I told you that there is a barramundi in the Northern Territory worth $1 million? There is. And there are 100 barramundi in the Northern Territory with $10,000 tags on them. They are all there ready to be caught. Now, you may think that I've lost my mind; it doesn't exist, it's not true—but you couldn't be more wrong. It does exist. This million-dollar fish has a name: Million Dollar Fish Season 3. That's right. The Million Dollar Fish Competition is back in the Territory for another season. But you need to risk it to win the biscuit. This means you need to register—so, go to milliondollafish.com.au. Then you need to get up to the NT. Good luck to all those who come up. You've got to come up to the Territory to be in with a chance to win.
Tourism in the Territory directly and indirectly creates more than 15,000 jobs. The Million Dollar Fish Competition always manages to lure many tourists from the southern states to get warm and try their hand. Your odds have never been better. I want to congratulate the Northern Territory government and the sponsors—CrownBet, BCF, Lion, Jayco, Shimano, Engle, Territory Discoveries and Territory Power Sports Group—for again getting behind this fantastic initiative. As I said, the tourism industry in the Territory supports a lot of Territorians and their families. This competition is held through the wet season, and that's generally a lower point in our tourism season. So it's a great opportunity for you to get up to the Territory with your family and catch a big one. Thank you.
Mosman Daily: 100th Anniversary
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (10:24): I rise to mark an important occasion in my local community, the centenary of the Mosman Daily newspaper. As is the case across Australia, local newspapers like the Mosman Daily are the lifeblood of our local communities, providing us with news and information spanning local, state and federal issues that impact on our suburbs. Their role is particularly important in filling the gaps of major metropolitan dailies, where the issues of concern to local communities fight for space alongside state, national and world news. They bring us the human stories of both success and despair, and some of our great local characters, connecting us with our neighbours in a way that few other media outlets can do. They have the power to build and shape communities, raise local issues and support local causes. The Mosman Daily is no exception to these rules and to this day remains an integral part of life on the Lower North Shore.
There are few organisations that have the continuity that allows us to reflect upon 100 years of our history. The Mosman Daily shows how much we have changed as a society and how Sydney has developed. Like many such endeavours, it begun humbly, once housed near the Mosman Town Hall in a corrugated iron shed. Today a journalist may dictate a story straight into a smartphone and see it appear literally moments later online. But in 1917 the stories in the Mosman Daily were typically written by hand or, as technology progressed, typed on a typewriter and printed on a hand-fed press. Today we are treated to page upon page of high-gloss photographs of people, places and homes, whereas the early editions contained the occasional hand-drawn picture.
The Mosman Daily has adapted itself over the years to changing technologies, news priorities and distribution channels. In its 100 years, journalists at the Mosman Daily have reported from the frontlines on some of the area's most historic events, which have also shaped Sydney. They include the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which transformed the North Shore; the attempted assassination of Arthur Calwell outside Mosman Town Hall; and the tragic fire at Luna Park. It has seen us through two world wars, shown us a tornado-devastated Mosman in the 1960s and reported the grim news of Victor Chang's death. It has also delighted us with stories of local sporting heroics, community events and the much-awaited movies screened at our local cinemas. Yet for me it's the Daily's coverage of those who are often unsung heroes in our communities which is perhaps most important.
I have seen the work of Mosman Daily journalists for over a decade, first as a North Sydney councillor and now as a representative in this parliament. They have been an impressive group of people, typified by their commitment to quality and professional reporting. The newspaper is currently under the editorship of Brett Thomas. I thank Brett and his team on behalf of our local community for continuing to provide the vital service of news delivery to the people of North Sydney. I join all in our community in celebrating this magnificent milestone, and I have no doubt it will continue for decades ahead in being the chronicle of our community.
Macquarie Electorate: Higher Education
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:27): It's no surprise to us in the west of Sydney that we're going to be hit hardest by the government's latest cuts to university funding. Western Sydney University, where 2,000 of the students in my electorate of Macquarie go, will face the biggest hit of any university in New South Wales. It will be $54 million worse off over the next four years than under the current settings. The consequence of those cuts is that students will be worse off, there will be fewer staff employed, scholarships will be at risk and some of the schemes that support not just students but the wider community will have to go. Around a quarter of the university's total students are of low-socioeconomic status and nearly 62 per cent are the first in their family to go to uni. Every student who starts at Western Sydney University is able to get free e-text books in their first year. That can make the difference between someone choosing to go to university and finding it just too big a bridge to cross. The program is at risk with these cuts.
Even more than that, as the vice-chancellor told me, and as a Senate inquiry has been told, this cut will undermine the university's ability to skill people for the jobs the future will demand. For instance, the university offers courses in robotics and automated manufacturing, which support changing labour market needs. Initiatives like the Launch Pad start-up incubator network have given more than 150 regional start-ups the chance to collaborate and have the office space and the technology they need. These sorts of things will not be able to be funded if the cuts go ahead.
Not all my local students go to Western Sydney. Many go to Sydney University, New South, UTS or Macquarie, but all of those universities will face cuts, totalling $165 million over four years; plus, the students have to contend with the failing trains, the increasing tolls and the exorbitant cost of living close to uni, on a wage that is less likely than ever to cover the costs of living.
This is yet another attack that will increase inequality. In my community, 11 per cent of families with children under 15 are without work. That is nearly double the percentage that there is in Woollahra. Those who do work are on average $35,000 worse off than those living in the eastern suburbs. Someone living in the Prime Minister's electorate has five times more investment income than someone living in Macquarie. If you are self-employed, like a tradie or a small family business, you will earn nearly three times less in Macquarie than similar people in businesses in the Prime Minister's seat of Wentworth.
This Prime Minister needs to get out of his bubble. He needs to see what it is like for hardworking families and see the uphill battles they fight every single day in the west, just to get a fair go.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) (10:31): I understand it is the wish of honourable members that constituency statements continue for a further period of 15 minutes. There being no objection, the chair will allow that course to be followed and call the member for Forrest.
Forrest Electorate: Small Business
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Chief Government Whip) (10:31): Thank you. I rise to congratulate a fantastic local business, Vintage Steel, founded by Michael Rock and Andrew Repton in Donnybrook in my electorate. Vintage Steel is making fine-quality products and exporting them to customers around the world. They specialise in making exact replicas of mudguards and fenders for veteran and vintage motorcycles, specifically bikes from 1900 to 1960—for instance, the J model Harleys and the 1930s Velocettes. Michael and Andrew started Vintage Steel in 2016 and by the end of their first year they had made—handmade—100 mudguards. Thirty-eight of those were exported. What an outstanding achievement for a fledgling small business in such a specialised field. They are developing a worldwide reputation and are exporting to countries such as New Zealand, the United States, Bermuda, Finland and Norway.
Mark and Andrew are passionate and patient, and they are craftsmen. They put extraordinary time and care into each piece they produce. I have seen it myself. That is exactly what it takes to create classic items to the specifications that replicate the originals. The men showed me exactly how they make their mudguards and fenders using a bender and a roller. It starts with a flat sheet of metal. For a small mudguard, there is a minimum of 50 passes through the rollers; for a large guard, it is 190 handheld passes through the rollers. It is almost like massaging the steel to the required shape. It is precision work. They have over 120 valance templates. Precision tools are required, and they do amazing work.
Like many sound small businesses, they support the local economy and the community, including local WA vintage motorcycle clubs, helping to preserve such an important part of motorcycle history. Vintage Steel uses Australian BlueScope steel in their manufacturing process. Every item is handmade. It is a small-business success story. They are now expanding the vehicle types they are manufacturing to include hot rods and vintage cars. This is a wonderful example of the work that Michael Rock and Andrew Repton are doing. I congratulate them for their courage, for having a go, for investing and for making such amazing quality products in Donnybrook.
Newcastle Electorate: Federal Circuit Court
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (10:34): Today I want to talk about a very serious matter that's putting the safety of my community at risk, and I want to again call on the Prime Minister to do something about it. Six months ago the Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, appointed one of Newcastle's Federal Circuit Court judges to the Australian Law Reform Commission, leaving Newcastle registry short, with only two judges. At the time, the legal community and I were assured that the replacement was imminent. But, six months later, the people of Newcastle are still waiting, despite repeated assurances from the Attorney-General that a replacement is under active consideration.
This is not just an annoyance; it's gross incompetence from the man charged with being the highest legal officer in the land. It's lard to overstate the impact this is having on families dealing with multiple and complex issues, including marital breakdown, child custody disputes, domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. These people are now being forced to wait for years in limbo for their cases to be resolved. After multiple letters to the Attorney-General had no effect, I wrote to the Prime Minister, more than a month ago now, calling on him to compel his Attorney-General to do his job. To date I am still waiting for a reply. The fact that neither the Attorney-General nor the Prime Minister seems able to recognise the danger they are putting our community in is deeply concerning.
The Attorney-General has received multiple warnings from senior members of Newcastle's legal community that this vacancy is putting lives at risk. Last month data was prepared for me by Chief Judge Pascoe, head of the Federal Circuit Court, which revealed that Newcastle's Federal Circuit Court judges are straining under workloads twice the size of the national average as a direct result of this government's failure to fill this critical judicial vacancy. In fact, Newcastle judges are projected to each have an average of 770 matters on their books in 2016-17, compared with the national average of 376. This is indefensible. Even former Federal Circuit Court judge Giles Coakes has been forced to take to take the extraordinary step of speaking out, accusing the Attorney-General of being 'Reckless and negligent in taking so long to fill this position'.
This can't go on. We have been waiting too long for the Attorney-General to fulfil the basic bread-and-butter duties of his job. The Prime Minister needs to step in and to direct the Attorney-General to appoint a replacement judge to Newcastle's Federal Circuit Court as a matter of absolute urgency.
National Day of Singapore
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (10:37): Today is Singapore's National Day. It is held today, 9 August, in memory of Singapore's freedom from Malaysia in 1965. There are well over 1,000 constituents in my electorate of Chisholm whose birthplace and whose heritage hails from Singapore. I have not only travelled to Singapore as a tourist but many times have travelled and worked there during my business career, having worked as an Asia-Pacific senior counsel and head of corporate affairs for companies that base their Asia-Pacific headquarters there. From a personal perspective, I have long admired Singapore's culture and its people for their kindness and creativity and for our fond and close friendship and association with Australia. Singapore is Australia's fifth-largest trading partner and foreign investor.
Having been in this role as the member for Chisholm for just over a year, one of my greatest honours was to be part of the 45th Parliament's warm welcome of Singapore's Prime Minister Lee, who's played an integral role in harnessing our relationship. Australians share many common human qualities with Singaporeans, notwithstanding that we are countries with different cultures and traditions, particularly because our respective countries focus on rules based trade to deliver more jobs and higher incomes for our people. The Turnbull government's Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, our China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and other agreements with our Asian neighbours ensure unprecedented economic integration with our Asian neighbours and cement the Turnbull government's focus on and support of businesses across the spectrum, from small to medium to large businesses, to ensure growth and jobs and a strong economy for future generations of Australians.
The Turnbull government, unlike Labor, are not antibusiness. Rather, we believe that these free trade agreements are underpinned by our natural partnering relationship with our Asian neighbours and foster further trade and investment, helping Australia and our Asian neighbouring countries to seize the economic opportunities for our growing region. Undoubtedly this harnesses the innovation and enterprise of the countless small businesses and business operators in my electorate who are supported and embraced by the Turnbull government. Like many of migrant heritage, many in my electorate speak a language other than English in the home. The other key language in Singapore is Mandarin. For all those of migrant heritage in Chisholm, like me, our pride in our migrant heritage remains in our heart and our spirit.
On this, Singapore's national day, I would like to acknowledge that Singaporeans and those of Singaporean ancestry in my electorate, and across Australia, play an integral role in the reason why Australia is the third most multicultural nation on earth. As Prime Minister Turnbull said at the time of Prime Minister Lee's visit:
We are, after all, quite natural partners—highly sophisticated, educated and multicultural societies with open economies.
Not just to Singaporeans, but to all Australians of my electorate in Chisholm, one of the most diverse electorates in Australia: being an Australian of ethically diverse background remains in our heart and spirit, whether that is Singaporean, Chinese, Greek, Italian or any other ancestry.
Schools
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (10:40): I'd like to draw your attention to a report revealing that a staggering $630 million will be cut from Victorian public schools because of the policies of this government. According to the Victorian education department analysis, more than 70 state schools will be short-changed by $1 million over the next two years. In my electorate of Wills, Coburg High School will be as much as $900,000 worse off. Glenroy Secondary College will be up to $600,000 worse off. John Fawkner Secondary College will suffer cuts of up to $400,000. Pascoe Vale Primary School will lose up to $300,000. In fact, there isn't a single school in my electorate that won't lose funding because of this coalition government.
These figures are more than just numbers. The loss in funds translates to fewer resources and services, fewer special curriculum programs and fewer extracurricular activities. These cuts will negatively impact the learning environment for our kids and rob them, the future of our nation, of the best start in life. We have all seen the Turnbull government MPs out and about on the hustings trying to spin their education policy as good news for the nation. The Prime Minister and his education minister have been using figures that are deliberately designed to hide what this really is—a $22 billion cut to school funding. I note that even the Liberal government of New South Wales has gone to the extent of warning school principals that the Turnbull government's figures cannot be trusted. The Prime Minister is merely congratulating himself because he's cutting less money than the last Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott. The fact remains that the Liberals are still cutting money from the system.
To borrow a line from the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply speech—which was an excellent speech, I should add—it's a bit like an arsonist turning up to help put out the fire that they started and then claiming credit for it. Labor introduced the original Gonski deal because Labor is committed to making sure we have the best schools in the world. We want to make sure that, regardless of whether a child lives in Fawkner or Strathmore or Coburg or Brunswick in my electorate of Wills, or whether they live next door to the Prime Minister's Point Piper mansion, they will get the same access to a quality education.
Education is the key that opens the door to opportunity. I grew up in a housing commission. I got access to quality education because of Labor government policies. It gave me an opportunity to give something back to this country. It has afforded millions of Australians the opportunity to make a difference to their lives, to their families' lives and to the wider community. Education is the key to opportunity, and we should be doing everything we can in our government in Australia to provide those opportunities for all Australians. That is essentially what fairness is about. That is essentially what it means to provide equality of opportunity.
Welfare Reform
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (10:43): I rise today to thank the many constituents from Melbourne's west who have contacted me in recent weeks about the Turnbull government's proposed trial of the mandatory drug testing of social security recipients. I want to make it clear to everyone who has contacted me that Labor opposes this immoral, misguided and politically motivated trial.
Were the government to deny social security support to individuals who are suffering from substance addiction and, as a result, failed a drug test, the consequences would be borne by the whole community. Vulnerable Australians would be driven to poverty and crime as a result of this trial. Indeed, the program would quickly become an engine for sharply increasing homelessness in our community. And it wouldn't work. As the Royal Australian College of Physicians and the Australasian Chapter of Addiction Medicine have stated, 'These measures are not based on evidence of what works, either at a policy or a clinical level.' Similar drug testing programs have been tried and abandoned in the United Kingdom and in Canada. Indeed, a 2015 drug testing program for welfare recipients in New Zealand found that only 22 of 8,001 participants tested returned a positive result for illicit drug use. A blunt-force approach of this kind would also put extra pressure on an already stretched drug addiction treatment system, adding more people to already lengthy queues for treatment and forcing those intrinsically motivated people that bring themselves to treatment, who stand the best chance of successful treatment, to wait even longer.
A government that was serious about helping people suffering from substance abuse and about protecting the broader community would listen to expert health advice and prioritise its resources on treatment and community policing. As the Australian Medical Association said:
… the AMA considers these measures to be mean and stigmatising. The AMA considers substance dependence to be a serious health problem, one that is associated with high rates of disability and mortality. The AMA firmly believes that those affected should be treated in the same way as other patients with serious health conditions, including access to treatment and supports to recovery.
Unfortunately, this trial seems to reflect the Turnbull government's attitude to people suffering from addiction—that they can simply be punished into good health. The same budget that announced these drug-testing trials also included proposals from the government to deny disability support payments to people whose disability stems from substance addiction—again, no additional investment in treatment or policing; just an unthinking bureaucratic guillotine on the support these people need to survive, tearing away the modest financial platform that people suffering from addiction need before they can even try to seek medical assistance. Thankfully, as a result of a disallowance motion moved by Labor in the Senate, around 450 vulnerable people will not have the disability benefit stripped because they have a disability resulting from substance abuse. I thank everyone in Melbourne's west who has written to me for their advocacy on this important issue, and I can assure them that Labor will not be a party to this government's attempts to demonise those suffering from addiction.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (10:46): I support the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 today because it does two very important things: it creates a new framework to establish and manage our national immunisation registers and it expands the scope of the two existing registers. The bill also furthers the government's strong commitment to the No Jab, No Pay program, which has lifted immunisation rates right across Australia. The bill before us will strengthen and galvanise our whole society's protection against measles, mumps, rubella, shingles and the scourge of whooping cough. These are all diseases which attack our most vulnerable, by which we mean the young, the sick and the elderly. We must keep these people safe from disease and their health as secure as possible. I strongly support this bill for several reasons. First, it makes sense for medical practitioners and patients to be able to easily track their vaccination record so that they can make sure they're up to date with their immunisations and don't have additional vaccinations when it's not necessary to do so. We shouldn't waste money and precious medical resources. In this data-driven age it makes sense to have a register of immunisation so that we're not reliant on pieces of paper to record our vaccination history. This means those who have to move regularly for work, for example, will not be so reliant on transferring records between their doctors or healthcare professionals. Second, and more importantly, we must protect the most vulnerable in our community. Our most vulnerable, in this instance, are babies and very young children, people who are not able to be immunised because of serious illness, or the elderly who may have compromised immune systems.
Unfortunately, I have a firsthand and quite terrifying experience of how important it is to protect our most vulnerable and how easily they can be put at risk, no matter how diligent and well-immunised you are. Back in 2009, despite being fully immunised, I was diagnosed with whooping cough. That year, South Australia was suffering a whooping cough epidemic. I was one of the 5,831 people who contracted the disease, despite having a normal and up-to-date vaccination record. My experience with whooping cough was not terrifying because I had the classic cough and couldn't breathe—my symptoms were quite the opposite: all I had was a runny nose and a mild cough—it was terrifying because the week before I was diagnosed, and before my symptoms became really noticeable, I had visited my brother, sister-in-law and my week-old niece. My family spent a very nervous few weeks waiting to see if my niece, who of course was too young to be immunised, developed any symptoms; thankfully, she did not.
This very close call reiterated to me the absolute importance of vaccination, but it also reiterated the importance of staying up to date with medical advice, which includes that expectant mothers, fathers and grandparents, and anyone else who will be in close contact with brand-new babies, or people with compromised immune systems, should have a new whooping cough vaccination. It is a particularly nasty disease that has a habit of mutating, so up-to-date immunisation is very important. By not vaccinating ourselves or those in our care, we risk not only our lives and theirs but the lives of others in the community. We have to protect the vulnerable, the young and the elderly, and we cannot take for granted these vaccines, which are the result of over a century of public health management and medical research.
We are so privileged to live in a world where we have come so close to eradicating diseases that have plagued humanity for much of our history. It wasn't long ago that our ancestors did not enjoy such safety. It wasn't long ago that polio was still rife in so many parts of the world. Thanks to the work of Rotary International and their partners, they have reduced polio cases by 99.9 per cent worldwide since their first project to vaccinate children in the Philippines in 1979. Globally, there have been only eight reported cases of the wild poliovirus this year. It's a remarkable achievement.
As a proud member of the Rotary Club of Blackwood, I want to acknowledge the wonderful work of our president Garry Dolman, immediate past president Robyn Venus and all the work that the dedicated volunteers do week in, week out to raise money to eradicate this terrible and preventable disease globally. Their efforts are repeated by the 35,000-plus Rotary clubs around the world, and what a remarkable effort and achievement it has been to almost eradicate this terrible disease by immunisation.
It is not just whooping cough and polio that we need to protect against. It is other diseases like measles—a disease that, like polio, people of my generation don't really understand. If you do want to understand the devastating impact of measles, then read famous children's author Roald Dahl's 1986 essay on the death of his much-loved daughter, Olivia. She died at the age of seven in 1962, at a time when immunisations for measles were not reliable or readily available. He wrote:
Olivia, my eldest daughter, caught measles when she was seven years old. As the illness took its usual course I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it. Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn't do anything. 'Are you feeling all right?' I asked her. 'I feel all sleepy,' she said. In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead.
Later in the essay, he went on to say:
It is almost a crime to allow your child to go unimmunised.
The coalition agrees with this sentiment. This is why, in 2015, we passed the Australian Immunisation Register Act, which created a new consolidated legislative framework for the establishment and ongoing maintenance of Australian immunisation.
The Immunisation Register, created by the coalition, complemented the policy by allowing parents and children over the age of 14 to see whether they meet their immunisation requirements. The register works in conjunction with the No Jab, No Pay policy, and is one of the mechanisms that has facilitated the climb of our vaccination rate from 90 per cent in September 2016 to 93 per cent now, and rates continue to climb. A rate of 95 per cent immunisation is considered the benchmark for stopping the spread of diseases, and that is what the government is working towards. For those with children covered by the No Jab, No Pay program, the vaccination rate sits just shy of this, at 94.5 per cent. It is a program of tough love, admittedly, but it is ultimately good public health policy that saves lives and protects lives. The coalition's No Jab, No Pay program has increased children's immunisations by an extra 200,000, making children's lives and those around them safer. Immunisation is the safest and most effective way of protecting against vaccine-preventable disease. In addition to creating a consolidated vaccination register and improving nationwide vaccination data capture, the Australian Immunisation Register, which came into effect on 1 January 2016, improved arrangements surrounding the medical exemption process, such that only general practitioners could assess for medical exemptions.
Since then, other specialists, including immunisation clinicians, have requested that other specialised medical professionals be allowed to conduct assessments for medical exemptions recognised under the act. Medical specialists have told of how sending patients back to general practitioners to get medical exemptions has unnecessarily added a burden for the time of both patients and practitioners, and unnecessary cost. This is why, in the interests of enhancing the effective No Jab, No Pay program, the government has introduced this bill, which will recognise other specialists as being able to provide medical exemptions. These specialists include paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious disease physicians and clinical immunologists. These changes will allow these specialists to provide a medical exemption through the Australian Immunisation Register. This will streamline the way individuals are assessed for a medical exemption, by including those medical practitioners. This will reduce the time taken for a small number of individuals who need to obtain this medical exemption from immunisation.
The willingness of the medical sector to consult and provide feedback on this vital policy shows they are primarily concerned with making this good policy work even better. Doctors, like the coalition government, understand the importance of a high vaccination rate in Australia. While the rate is climbing, we must keep working to see that those areas which lag behind catch up with the rest of the nation. A family's choice not to immunise their children is not supported by health, public health policy or medical research. If a dangerous disease is preventable, we must do all we can to reasonably stop it. The benefits to the broader community from high vaccination rates are too important to do nothing. We have to keep our most vulnerable, from babies through to the elderly, as safe and secure as possible.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (10:56): The Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which makes largely incontestable changes to the operation of the Australian Immunisation Register, is an important bill. On a recent parliamentary delegation to Myanmar—a very interesting trip, seeing the healthcare resources in a country that spends less than $20 per capita per year on health—I was struck by comments from a village leader—not a doctor—in one of the outlying villages some hours from Yangon. This village leader was very proud that there had not been a case of measles in his village for over four years and that the last case of tetanus in the village had been over two years ago. He said that he and the whole village were very proud of their record and they wanted to make sure that all the children in the village were protected against the common childhood diseases. He did mention also that he had lost one of his brothers to tetanus some years previously, and he was well aware of the dangers of such diseases, particularly to the children in the village.
In Australia, our overall childhood immunisation rates have crept up to over 92 per cent, but, unfortunately, as a public health policy, immunisation has been a victim of its own success. We now have a generation, including some of my children's generation, who have never seen measles or chicken pox or bacterial meningitis or epiglottitis. We actually now have several generations of doctors who have never seen tetanus or diphtheria or polio or smallpox or congenital rubella. It is very easy, therefore, for people to develop an anti-immunisation stance, as we have forgotten the terrible consequences of these previously common childhood diseases. Unless we are vigilant, however, it is quite possible for these illnesses to appear again. As a paediatrician, it absolutely infuriates me to see some people encouraging antivaccination organisations. These groups are highly irresponsible, antiscientific and vindictive. They demean our scientists, and, in many areas, significantly reduce our immunisation rates, and they endanger lives. For example, on the North Coast of Sydney recently, there was a case of childhood tetanus in an unimmunised child.
Let me tell you a little of what I have seen, because this is real life to me. As a medical student in 1974, I saw children in the Indian subcontinent with polio, tetanus and diphtheria with all its complications. Thankfully, these diseases have almost completely been eradicated in the subcontinent due to immunisation programs, often sponsored by non-government organisations, as we have heard, such as Rotary, which has done a fantastic job in the almost eradication of polio. As a paediatrician, I worked at the Sydney Children's Hospital in 1978 when we had the last great measles epidemic in Australia. Measles immunisation was included in the general immunisation schedule for children 12 months and older in 1975, so, in the late seventies, there was still a large cohort of children who were not immunised against measles.
We were completely inundated with children who had every complication of measles, from pneumonia to seizures, encephalitis and, unfortunately, death. I sat by the intensive care bed of a child with haemophilus influenzae meningitis—Hib meningitis. She was unwell at lunchtime, presented to hospital at dinner time and was dead by midnight. I sat by her bed and watched her die in spite of everything we did. I saw a child with epiglottitis have respiratory arrest—a complete respiratory obstruction—in front of me and require an urgent tracheostomy. These are real things for me.
The Hib vaccination was introduced to the child immunisation schedule in 1993 in Australia, and it was like the turning off of a tap. We no longer saw haemophilus meningitis; we no longer saw epiglottitis. In Campbelltown, in the paediatric ward where I worked, we were used to having, maybe, 15 or 20 cases of severe Hib infections, meningitis, epiglottitis and septicaemia per year. But, with the advent of immunisation, the tap was turned off, and these illnesses virtually disappeared. During the election campaign, on polling day I met, at one of the local polling booths, the mum of a girl who I looked after, who actually survived haemophilus meningitis but was left with a severe intellectual disability and a severe seizure disorder. Thankfully, we no longer see children like that. These illnesses disappeared thanks to immunisation.
I've seen children lose limbs and some die with meningococcal septicaemia. I've sat with a paediatric neurologist as he told the parents of one of my patients that their child had a condition called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, or SSPE, which is a slow-virus encephalitis that occurs following a measles infection some years previously that leads to gradual cerebral deterioration and death. It is completely untreatable. People have forgotten about these illnesses, but, unless we improve our immunisation rates, they will still occur. I've witnessed the anguish of a mum on day 6 of treatment of her 11-month-old boy for pneumococcal meningitis. She realised on day 6 of treatment that he was completely deaf due to the meningitis.
I remember these children. They are etched in my mind. I've seen children with whooping cough cough themselves to death. I've seen a child recovering from leukaemia die from chickenpox pneumonia. Can you imagine what it's like having your child respond to treatment, start to get better and then die from chickenpox pneumonia? There are many more patients I'd like to talk about. Indeed, they all deserve my acknowledgement. They show that these illnesses are real and, to me, they've been part of my working life. We've come, indeed, a long way in our fight against these terrible diseases, but we must continue to improve our immunisation rate. In doing so, we will save lives and prevent the long-term sequelae in many people.
There is an increasingly strident anti-immunisation group who will use any means whatsoever to deliver their unscientific views. The recent comments by Senator Hanson will be used and, indeed, are being used by the antivaccination lobby as some sort of justification for their ideas. That's why I delivered to Senator Hanson's office copies of the Australian Academy of Science's literature on immunisation in an effort to explain the scientific basis of and success of our immunisation programs. On several occasions I've offered to meet her but, as yet, have had no response. I want to discuss with her her views on immunisation and the importance of maintaining trust in our scientists and repudiating the completely irresponsible statements that she has made regarding immunisation.
Recently in my electorate the anti-immunisation group arranged a screening of the unscientific, malicious and misleading film Vaxxed. I wrote to the cinema chain involved. Whenever they present this completely malicious film, I want to present the true immunisation science and explain why it has been so important to our public health in Australia. I have as yet had no response.
This bill also introduces some important improvements to our immunisation monitoring, such as the increased list of practitioners who can grant medical exemptions from vaccination requirements, to include people like paediatricians, like myself, infectious diseases physicians and immunologists. It increases the coverage of the register. However there is still much more that can be done. The change to the whole-of-life register is to be applauded but we must couple this with improved access to newer vaccinations, such as meningococcal type C vaccine, and improving availability of and knowledge of newer vaccines for things like herpes zoster, or shingles, in older Australians.
The overwhelming need for a new community-based education program about immunisation is fundamentally clear to me, and I wish the government had taken steps to make sure this happens. The government should strongly consider this on an ongoing basis, as we need to continue to improve everyone's knowledge about and understanding of the basis of immunisation and how important it is. The increasingly virulent, if I can describe it that way, attitude of the antivaccination groups, which ignore our scientists, portray themselves as experts and infiltrate social media with fanciful, unscientific information, is to be deplored. We need to make sure that, at every stage the antivaccination groups present their terribly false information, we counter it publicly and make sure people understand why immunisation is important to our children and also now to our older Australians. There's lots of evidence now that immunisation for influenza can be very important in our older Australians. Immunisation against bacterial infections such as pneumococcal disease in older Australians can be very important, particularly in those who have cardiovascular disease or peripheral vascular disease. We really need to encourage everyone to be up to date with their immunisations, and this includes adults as well as children.
We also need to increase funding for immunisation research. Australia has led the world. We have a very, very proud record in Australia in our immunological research and in our research into immunisation. People may not be aware, but congenital rubella syndrome, which still occasionally occurs, was discovered by an Australian ophthalmologist, Sir Norman Gregg, and he is famous around the world for his discovering of the congenital rubella syndrome. People like Sir Macfarlane Burnet, Professor Peter Doherty and, more recently, Professor Ian Frazer have been instrumental in improving access to and understanding the importance of immunisation. We have a very proud record and it is important that this continue and that we continue funding for institutions such as the Kirby Institute, the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and the Children's Medical Research Institute at Westmead. It is very important that we fund these organisations properly. Australia can also help our overseas neighbours with funding to improve their immunisation rates and surveillance of infection diseases. We live in a global world. Many of the recent outbreaks of measles that have occurred in Australia have started with arrivals from infected people from overseas. If we can improve immunisation rates in our near and not-so-near neighbours that will improve our response to infectious diseases.
The future for immunisation is really a fascinating one. New immunisations are becoming available. I saw my aged father go through a terrible time with shingles towards the end of his life. It made the last 12 months of his life very, very uncomfortable. But we now have an immunisation available for herpes zoster, or shingles. In older Australians, it's very effective. Many people, however, are unaware of its availability. Again, we need to improve our knowledge and education about immunisation.
There are some recent surveys that show that older people who are vaccinated against pneumococcal disease—a bacteria which causes chest infections, and sometimes bronchitis and even septicaemia—have less cardiovascular disease. So it seems that that has a beneficial effect on cardiovascular health as well.
There's increasing investment around the world, by people like the Gates Foundation, in immunisation against diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria, and now there is a lot of research into immunisation against HIV. I went to a presentation yesterday by the peak HIV organisation in Australia, where they talked about the research into immunisation against HIV and the prospect that we will eventually be able to eradicate HIV. So this is very exciting and very important research.
The anti-immunisation groups are persistent, however, in their attacks. We must commit to better education about and explanation of immunisation and its benefits. I want all of us to be as proud of our immunisation rates and prevention of disease as the Burmese headman I met so recently.
I commend the bill to the House. I am extremely proud of the bipartisan nature of our response to improving immunisation rates. I think there is more to be done. I thank the House.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:11): It is with great pleasure that I follow the member for Macarthur on such an important issue and after such an important contribution, as it is from a singular perspective in this House, I believe, in terms of his work in paediatrics and the insight he brings with him. I join him in commending the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, and I am pleased to speak in support of this bill. It is work that I think needs to be absolutely bipartisan because of its critical factors.
I want to speak particularly about the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Lalor. There's been much talk about immunisation rates, and a tendency to think that it is inner-city middle-class people turning away from immunisation. I speak from the other end of that perspective. I speak for a community where there are 5½ thousand people who have not had their childhood immunisation programs completed. I speak for a community where 30 per cent of our four-year-olds do not attend childcare or education. I speak for a community where many young families may not be connected to a general practitioner, one that they see repeatedly, and may not necessarily be connected to the kind of maternal and child healthcare opportunities that I had when my children were young in that community. These are really important matters. These children will get to the school gate, but No Jab, No Pay for childcare will not have an impact.
In a community like mine, we need to spend an enormous amount of money on education about immunisation. We need to ensure that this message is reaching everyone. So, while I celebrate today that we are here and we have a long speaking list—and that pleases me too because we are shining a light on this very important issue—and while the No Jab, No Pay regime in Victoria is improving outcomes and continually shining a light on this, I still feel that there is so much more to be done.
I have sat with the anti-vaxxers that the member for Macarthur referenced. They are more likely to be middle class and more likely to be educated, but more likely to be completely and utterly naive about this issue. They are unaware of Australia's great history in this space. And they are afraid because, through their self-education—through the internet—they tell me they believe that immunisation is some kind of campaign by big pharmacology, when in fact immunisation has come from the groundswell of generations past to prevent the kinds of losses that they saw.
I listened to the member for Boothby earlier about her coming in contact with whooping cough and then being a sufferer of whooping cough. I am a mother of a young family, with three sons under five. My eldest contracted whooping cough at school. My mother, who was then in her 70s, recognised the cough in its very early stages and immediately said, 'Joanne, your boy has whooping cough.' It is a communicable disease. He had picked it up at school. He had been vaccinated, but it had broken through his defences. In a large family, with seven siblings and lots of babies, this meant complete isolation for my family. It meant that my son, who was in his first year of school, missed eight weeks of school. The costs go beyond those things. I had the value of a mother who had lived through babes-in-arms dying from whooping cough and who could clearly explain to me the dangers for an infant who was not yet walking. I had a GP who could reassure me very quickly that, because he was on his feet and five years of age, whooping cough would not have a dramatic impact on him, but the danger was there for the tiny infant.
What I see in my community is some ignorance of those who are new arrivals to our country who do not have a history of immunisation; that is an education profile. Some middle-class people or people who have taken it upon themselves to determine that they don't want their child vaccinated ignore the statistics and the need for the herd levels of vaccination. I have sat with some of these people and spoken to them. My take, when I am in conversation with them, is that we have a generational disjoint here, because they haven't seen the deaths. They haven't seen the pain. They haven't seen the tragedies firsthand. I tell them about my son having whooping cough and what that might have meant. I tell them about a very good friend of mine who had been exposed to rubella while pregnant and her deaf child and the impact that this has had on their family. It was another child who was carrying the measles virus which led to that. I tell them about my father, who had polio as a child. I tell them about my Uncle John, who had tuberculosis. He spent many months in a sanatorium as a young man and was lucky to survive the ordeal.
If you share these stories about the past and what immunisation has done to change that situation, people do come on board. As a mother—and I note the member for Hotham has just joined us; I know that she will be going through this as a mother of young children—you do not wake up in the morning and say: 'Yippee, it's immunisation day. I can't wait to take my child for a vaccine injection.' Nobody feels like that. Everybody has some trepidation about this process. It's through our families, through our mothers—dare I say it, through our paediatricians and through our GPs that we do these things, because we are doing it for the good of all. Yes, we all feel some trepidation, but we must continue to immunise our children to protect them and other children; it is to protect one another. So I am a firm believer that this legislation not only is important but requires absolute support from people across the chamber. Like others, I was incredibly disappointed to see Senator Hanson's recent comments. I was also disappointed that they were not immediately condemned across this chamber. That's how important this issue is. Speaking as someone from an electorate where we have high rates of people who are not immunising, I understand the risk, because the risk is there for all of the children in my community. I call on the federal government to do more. I have sat with health stakeholders who have harked back to the past, to the Victorian model, when we had the child maternal healthcare units—the old caravan at the kindergarten. This was where we went to get support and have our children immunised. This was where mums were supported through the feeding process and where our babies were weighed monthly. I was someone who had their children while those things were available. I was given support through food and allergy grading. We heard again in the news this week about the allergy rates of children in Australia and the importance of going through the processes in a carefully staged way in order to get those numbers down. So I see the importance of a stick and carrot.
I am concerned that we are not doing enough in education and on how we might rebuild an educative process that supports parents through these processes and ensures that there are good health outcomes for our children. I think it is a space where we could hear a lot from older generations. We could hear stories from paediatricians. We could hear stories from people like my mother who held babes in arms who were lost to whooping cough a long, long time ago. They could share those stories in our new technologically enhanced ways and make sure that everybody is hearing this message about vaccination.
I would stress, as did the member for Macarthur, the importance of carrying the message to the community that this is an area where Australia has led the way—to de-Americanise, if you like, this debate that's going on to ensure that people understand that this work is something where we have led and where we have trusted our scientists for several generations to see us through.
Having sat with people who are very concerned and are acting from a position of concern for their child that they perceive already has immunological difficulties, I welcome the extension to other professionals in providing exemptions. I encourage all those who feel trepidation in these spaces to ensure that they connect with their general practitioners and be talked through the issues and to please listen to the science.
This is a very important piece of legislation. It adds to what is happening in some states and, I am very proud to say, in the state of Victoria, where much of this work is being done. I can say here that I know there are 5,500 unvaccinated people in my electorate because of some of the work in Victoria where we are doing a much better job of monitoring vaccination processes. I think that is really important. This legislation does some important things.
I will take a moment to acknowledge the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, and his very high-profile stance on this in an electorate that, like mine, has high rates of people not immunising. I was really pleased to see him on the front page of our Melbourne newspapers, carrying that very strong message with his small infant and his partner, encouraging people to ensure they have their immunisations completed.
I will share in closing that when I was a member of a school community as an assistant principal at a school in Melbourne's west I took the phone call at our school that said that we had a case of meningococcal in a student. I would take this opportunity to say that if you are the person who has to tell 1,200 families that there is a communicable disease within your cohort of young people, aged between 11 and 18, watching parents' faces absolutely brings home to you the importance of immunisation like nothing else does. I would say to anyone who is worrying about immunisation, if you were in that school that day, if you'd received that letter, you would've been with every other family lining up at a doctor to get immunised and get immunised quickly. It is a terrifying thing to think that you have been close to a disease that can be as tragic as that. We had a very positive outcome in our school. The student that had come into contact with and contracted that illness rejoined us in the classroom in a fairly short time after receiving treatment, but I know as a whole community how lucky we felt for his family and how lucky we felt that there was only one incident and that there were no other children affected. I know after that incident in my community that there were a lot of families who then began to talk about immunisation, and I hope that that single circumstance may have led to others going to be immunised.
But with 5,500 people in my community who have not been immunised and children not attending kindergarten or childcare centres necessarily—30 per cent of our four-year-olds—this is a critical matter. I would urge government, both federal and state, to think about what we are going to do as a next step for those families when they reach the school gate and how we are going to reverse that. I do not suggest in any way that that's part of an anti-vaccination movement. It is more a matter of education and education around public health: connecting people with general practitioners and ensuring that all of the adults in our community are well and truly aware of both the processes and the vaccinations and their importance, and that they understand vaccination processes and the good they do for public health.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (11:25): I want to note the really outstanding contributions that have preceded me in this debate. We all come at the question of childhood vaccinations from a slightly different perspective. We've heard some really powerful stories from the member for Lalor in her capacity both as a mum of some wonderful boys, but also as a school principal who has had to deal with communicable diseases in that context. The experience of having to call families and tell them that such a disease is present in their community must have been utterly terrifying, and I really appreciate you sharing that story with us. Thank you so much.
The member for Lalor was preceded by the member for Macarthur, who we know is a paediatrician with decades of experience. I know that particularly for doctors in the medical community it's incredibly painful to participate in the current debate about the effectiveness of vaccinations, especially for doctors who have been around for a long time and have seen some of the horrific diseases that we have been able to virtually eradicate from our country through vaccinations. I will speak a little bit about the broader context for the discussion here today, but I do want to make mention of some of the specifics of the legislation before us.
Labor is very pleased to support the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. I might note that it's part of a relatively consistent legislative history of both major political parties in Australia trying to push this incredibly important issue forward. The bill before us makes two relatively minor changes to what are called the No Jab, No Pay arrangements. These are arrangements that, as I say, successive governments have pushed forward which restrict the entitlement of families in this country to certain government payments unless they can show that their children have been appropriately immunised. When those provisions were first put in place—they started around 1998—they included a number of exemptions. Families could say they were conscientious objectors to vaccinations, and of course there are some medical reasons why children can't be vaccinated. But over time governments have removed the various exemptions, because we are trying to make a very clear statement as community leaders—as the nation's parliament—that the expectation is that Australian families will vaccinate their children. That is incredibly important for the health of their child and for the health of the community more generally.
The legislation before us continues that history. It makes some requirements about the types of medical professionals who can provide evidence of vaccinations, and, indeed, it restricts the types of medical professionals who can provide evidence that exemptions have been allowed for various reasons on a medical basis. As I mentioned, the bill makes these relatively minor changes, but it does so in the context of a much broader and incredibly important community health issue to Australia. What we know is that despite incredibly voluminous amounts of evidence that tell us vaccinations are not only safe for use but also essential for the safety of our population here in Australia, immunisation rates in our country are lower than they need to be. It's a difficult conversation for those of us who have some perspective on what a powerful thing immunisations have been in improving the health of the community around the globe to have. Most people think that immunisations were, in fact, probably the biggest medical advance that we made in the 20th century. One of the studies that looked at the impact this has had on the lives of people around the world estimates that vaccinations save 2½ million lives every single year.
Now, in countries like Australia, we have seen horrible diseases affect, in particular, children. I know that people who are my parents' age and my grandparents' age can remember a time when, if a child started to contract flu-like symptoms—getting fevers and lethargy and other symptoms like this—parents would be awake all night wondering if their children had polio. And if they did have polio, they would know that a lot of the children who contracted this disease ended up without the use of their legs. Many of them died.
When we look to countries similar to Australia, in the US it was a peak—polio was contracted by something like 55,000 children a year. Many of those children died. And here, after years and years of research, brilliant medical scientists found a way to prevent this horrible illness from occurring. Now we are having a debate in the community about whether people should take access to that medicine. As a parent—I am sure you feel the same, Deputy Speaker—it's very hard to understand why it is that there are communities of people who are turning against such an extraordinary advancement, such a huge step forward, for us.
It's not just polio, it's things like diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough, which we have seen virtually wiped out. In some instances it has been completely wiped out but in others we see the odd case here or there. This is incredibly important. Nothing matters more than the health of the young people in a community. We need to continue to explain this to the Australian people; we need to continue to enforce this message. In part, it's legislation like that before us today which helps us do this.
Another critical point to understand about vaccinations— and I do hope that Australians are spreading the word about this—is that it is not just about the children who are vaccinated. When we vaccinate all of the children or the vast majority of children in a community we develop something called herd immunity in a population. That means that when the diseases we are working so hard to eradicate do pop up, from time-to-time, they are not able to spread very far. So if there is a case, just one case, it does not immediately fan out, as it used to, in the thirties, forties and fifties.
We know that to get herd immunity rates—this is the great goal of public health professionals in Australia—we need something like 95 per cent of the population immunised. We are not seeing that today. We see relatively high rates when we look at the nation as a whole. It is something like 93 per cent. But in some communities immunisation rates are quite a bit lower. Unfortunately, there are sections of my community which fit into this category. I represent areas like Springvale, in south-east Melbourne, which has something around an 88 per cent immunisation rate. It does not sound like a terribly big difference between 88 and 95 per cent, but it is. We need to hit this herd immunity rate. That shows me as a community leader, as a local representative, I need to be working harder to explain to my constituents why it is so crucially important that they go through this process of properly immunising their children.
There are a lot of reasons for people not going through this proper process of immunising their children. I know in the case by Springvale, which, by some authorities, is the most multicultural suburb in the whole of Australia, a lot of this is about parents who bring children from overseas as migrants and, perhaps, in the country they came from there were not clear requirements to immunise children from a very early age. We need to do more work to help migrant families understand the benefits of immunisation and to practically help those families bring their children back up to a catch-up schedule, as they say, when we immunise children later in life.
There is a lack of focus sometimes for parents. As we heard from some of the previous speakers, among older Australians there's a very clear recollection of children they know who contracted horrible diseases that, generally, don't exist in our country anymore. That's the generation of people who do not need to be educated about the benefits of vaccinations. But there are younger people in this country who have not observed that type of illness before and who do not have crystallised, in their minds, the crucial importance of protecting their children in the way we know they can. So, we need to do some more work there.
There is also a section of the population who have not immunised their children because they are concerned about completely scurrilous claims that there are things to be worried about in immunising their children. One of the most commonly held beliefs—a total falsehood—is that there is a link between immunisation and autism among children. In fact, the Royal Children's Hospital did a poll recently that showed that one in 11 Australian parents still believe that vaccination is connected to autism and a further 30 per cent of Australian parents are unsure. I think those utterly terrifying statistics give us the push that we need in this parliament to be utterly clear about this.
Immunisations do not cause autism. Study after study has shown that the scurrilous claims that were initially made about this were wrong. They are wrong, and we need to be clear with Australian parents that they should not just jump onto Google and have a little look around and see what they can find, because, I can tell you, the first thing you will find when you google is that some of the common search terms about immunisations will land you on the pages of groups of antivaxxers, as they're called—people who are spreading this information about this crucial medical requirement to help our Australian population be safe and healthy. So we need to be absolutely clear that a lot of the claims that are being made on these sites, on these Facebook pages, are wrong. It is not appropriate, as Senator Pauline Hanson done, to suggest to parents that they do their own research about this. The medical community is united in saying that vaccinations are crucial, that they are important for the health of your child and that they are important for the children around them, and it's not appropriate to encourage doubts in the minds of Australians about the impacts of this.
So I think we, as community leaders, have a very clear role here in making sure that we're clear and united and we speak with one voice about the importance of this crucial aspect of our medical system. Part of that is continuing to strengthen legislation, as we are seeing in a bipartisan manner today. Part of it, though, is also standing up to people who are fomenting this sense of unease in the minds of some Australian parents about the impact of vaccinations. And that's why I was very disappointed to see that unfortunately the government was unwilling to come out and make a very strong statement against Senator Hanson's very damaging comments. The last thing we need in this country is to have members of parliament coming out and stoking the fears of Australian parents in regard to something as crucial as vaccinations.
We know vaccinations work. We know they do not lead to autism. We don't want people in this parliament who are community leaders creating confusion and concern among Australian parents. And I think it is also incumbent on people who perhaps take a more sensible approach, take a more evidence based approach to these things, to make a strong statement when other people are stoking those fears. So, I would like to see the government be stronger in its stance against silly comments that might lead to a less-healthy community. I think that's a very basic test of leadership that was a big missed opportunity for the government.
It's also important that we continue the crucial work that's been done on national health campaigns around vaccinations. I say that again as a member of parliament representing a community in which pockets of that community are clearly not hearing the message about how crucial it is that we continue to vaccinate our children. We've seen some pretty concerning things recently. We have to remember in this chamber that we are, in a sense, fighting with this group of people online who are trying to spread misinformation. It was not long ago that there was a major screening of another scurrilous anti-immunisation film in Melbourne. We have to fight back against that with a strong public health campaign, and that's something we want to see properly funded. It's important that we take the legislative approach but that we also take this education approach, because we want Australian parents to be as fulsomely supportive and pleased to take their children to a vaccination session as those of us are who can understand what a world where we did not have vaccinations at all could look like.
In closing, I will say that we want to see some more action on the No Jab, No Play policy. That's one that restricts access to child care for young people who have not been vaccinated—again, making this very clear statement on behalf of this parliament that our expectation is that Australian parents will take this incredible gift of vaccination and make sure that their children around them are safe.
The member for Lalor closed her comments by talking about how none of us get excited about taking our kids for a vaccination. That's true. I wrote some of this speech while I had an 11-month-old baby on my lap. I don't enjoy taking him to the doctor, because he does get upset when he gets those needless. But I am so grateful that I live in a country where my child has the opportunity to protect himself and to protect the children around him. I want other parents to understand that it is a great gift that we have the opportunity to protect our children from diseases that have wreaked havoc on previous generations.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:40): In some respects, I think some of what I am going to say and put on the record may be a bit superfluous, having listened in my office to some of the incredible contributions of the member for Macarthur and also the member for Lalor and my colleague, neighbour and friend the member for Hotham. But I do think, for some of the reasons outlined, it is important that as many of us in this place as possible stand up and put on the public record our support for vaccination, for evidence based public policy. I know it is an old-fashioned concept at the moment—particularly for many opposite, when you talk about climate change and things like that—that public policy should be based on the best available scientific evidence and accumulated knowledge. But, as someone who studied a science degree many years ago—not that I was the greatest science student; I was otherwise occupied at university at times—and as someone who trained in the scientific method and firmly believes that our policy must be based on evidence and reason, I think that needs to be said.
We're fortunate to live in a society and a country where, through the impact of an effective national immunisation program, we have either largely forgotten or have never known the impact of mass death and disability caused by vaccine-preventable communicable diseases. As the member for Hotham said though, if we reach back not too far in our family histories, we can discover those stories. For instance, my daughter's grandfather still, in his 70s, suffers the effects of polio from many years ago. So it is important to remember the enormous public health benefits of vaccinations and indeed the millions of lives saved every year. But societies that forget and ignore science can all too easily slip into complacency, where the validity of immunisation is questioned. As it turns out, off-the-cuff comments by ill-informed internet conspiracy theorists are not a great basis for public health policy or life-changing decisions for individuals with regard to their families and children.
To their shame, the government did recently, as the member for Hotham said, let this tired and damaging debate swirl around again by not rebuking Senator Hanson in speaking strongly and failed to comprehensively shut down this misinformation. There was, as I saw in the paper this morning, a form of redemption, if you like, perhaps subject to verification, in that Polly Tommey, the antivaxxer activist from the UK, has been banned by the immigration department. Perhaps I could almost say the first positive thing I have ever said about the minister for immigration. That sounds like a good decision, a wise decision, should it be true. The shameful claim which was made by this individual that doctors were murderers was rebutted this morning in the paper by Dr John Cunningham, who said simply, 'Babies will die if not vaccinated.' So I think we would focus on that rather than the ridiculous claim that doctors are murderers.
The nature of the bill, as has been noted, provides for a couple of minor, sensible technical amendments to the Australian Immunisation Register Act, aka the No Jab, No Pay arrangements, which will allow for four other types of medical specialists—paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious diseases physicians and clinical immunologists—to grant exemptions to vaccination requirements. Currently, somewhat surprisingly actually, only GPs can do that. So it does seem sensible. You can't imagine that a paediatrician or a medical specialist couldn't also do this work. The amendments will make explicit in the legislation that the provision of vaccination information to the register must be by registered vaccination providers. Labor of course supports this bill. But, as ever, this government has a tendency to fiddle around the edges of legislation and call it reform when wider issues remain.
As has been outlined, but to briefly record, our immunisation program has been incredibly effective. Deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases have reportedly fallen by 99 per cent since the introduction of childhood vaccines 85 years ago. Vaccination rates are currently a little over 90 per cent, but, as the member for Hotham teased out, we do need to make sure the vaccination rates are as high as possible. We actually share the suburb of Springvale, and I know the issues you are talking about, particularly with newly arrived migrants and so on—the difficulty and the import of having these programs reach out and also the importance of having the programs available for temporary migrants, illegal arrivals or whatever, because it's a population-level impact to make sure that our public health programs don't discriminate by visa status and so on.
But for highly infectious diseases, and I will use the example of measles, we need much higher vaccination rates—at least 95 per cent—to provide that herd immunity. This complacency and refusal to vaccinate without medical justification is dangerous to the wider community as well as to individuals, particularly our kids. There are very few approved exemptions to immunisation requirements. The primary one is medical contraindication—things like anaphylaxis, compromised immunity and so on. So it is critical that only medical practitioners can grant such exemptions and provide advice to government as to whether vaccination requirements have been met.
Now, I will just turn, because it is important to record them, to the ridiculous statements this year by Senator Hanson, presumably advised by—currently—Senator Roberts; we'll see how that plays out. He is well known for his rejection of science, evidence and reason. Senator Hanson questioned the validity and safety of vaccines and encouraged parents to get their children nonexistent tests—tests that actually don't exist—for allergic reactions. I want to record in the Hansard the comment from AMA President Dr Michael Gannon, who said:
… it is the lament of doctors and scientists across Australia that evidence-based treatments do get called into question …
He said that nearly 10 per cent of Australian parents 'are so-called vaccine-hesitant' and 'can be swayed very easily by any message which might be seen to question the validity of the science'. In another interview he said it is essential that there is accurate information and that this idea that parents can spend 30 minutes on Wikipedia and come to a greater understanding of the issues than their doctor and the accumulated wisdom of all the world's medical scientists is ludicrous. That is what the member for Hughes did, I think, with his climate change comments in that wonderful speech. And I have to grant it to him: it is quite an art to be able to make a speech on any bill and bring it back to why burning coal is good. Nevertheless.
I do confess to be someone who occasionally is guilty of a bit of late-night Dr Google myself. I've diagnosed myself, after a couple of wines, with a range of dreadful cancers. So I do recommend going to the doctor and staying away from Dr Google.
An honourable member: No self-examination!
Mr HILL: No self-examination! But the government's response to its dear friend Senator Hanson in the Senate was somewhat more measured. For those listening at home—although I don't think anyone actually listens to the Fed Chamber at home, but it is in Hansard—I will say that I wonder why the government wouldn't just quickly speak out against such unscientific nonsense, when the evidence is clear and the answer a mix of politics and substance. Politics: the Prime Minister's brilliant move to call a double dissolution election means that his government—and I use the word 'government' in the formal sense, not because there is a lot of actual governing going on this week—are hostage to nutters and fringe dwellers. But you do have to have a listen to government MPs debating climate change and you'll quickly learn the depth of the irrationality and the disregard for science and evidence—why this bill and the support shown for immunisation programs as represented by this bill is welcomed. It contrasts, of course, with what I would say is an old-fashioned respect for science and evidence on the immunisation program on our side, with any antivaxxer stuff being quickly rebutted. But we're listening and are of course aware of the growing risk to the community from ill-informed antivaccination campaigners.
Importantly, we've been calling for some time for an appropriately resourced public awareness campaign on the importance of vaccinations. Indeed this bill, by formalising the ability of other providers, may give us other agents and channels to through which to promulgate such a campaign. So we were pleased that the government belatedly but finally agreed with us and announced a national immunisation awareness campaign in April. It's fair to say that $5.5 million over three years may not quite cut it in terms of delivering an effective public health message for such an important topic, and it's disappointing, particularly after allowing such myths and misconceptions to flourish. But countering this information and providing parents with this information is important, and I hope there's transparent monitoring, to be fair, of the impacts of the campaign on immunisation rates, public education and so on so that if additional resources are warranted they can be provided swiftly. We have always offered our support to the government on the sorts of measures that will lead to increased immunisation rates and a more efficient system, as this bill does, and a little more integrity in the system, but we expect more when it comes to public safety.
In the time remaining, I would echo the member for Hotham's comments. It is directly related to this system. There is an overdue measure of the No Jab, No Play state and territory laws to allow childcare centres to turn away children who are not immunised. If that sounds familiar, if you think you've heard it before perhaps—that's right—it was promised by former Prime Minister Abbott when opposition leader. Perhaps it was one of those non-core promises! There are core and non-core promises. Four years on, there has been no action. But, still, I was pleased to see that the new Minister for Health announced in March 2017 that the government will be proceeding with these laws. We have not heard anything since. It doesn't seem to have been on the COAG agenda. But, nevertheless, we will remain hopeful that, if the government can stop stand spending their time obsessing about marriage equality and other people's relationships, they may get back to governing and actually follow through on this.
The other thing I would say with respect to public health, because this of course sits in a broader context, is that the member for Gilmore, the member for Brand, some other members of this House and I were privileged to spend the last week of June after the last sitting week in Thailand and Myanmar with the Pacific Friends of the Global Fund. We were looking particularly on that trip at Australia's work and contribution in preventing, stopping and stamping out malaria and stopping the transmission of HIV and tuberculosis in South-East Asia. There is a very close link to vaccinations.
What really came home to me were a couple of things. Firstly, Australia has an enormous national interest in this. In our work in Australia on reaching 90 to 95 per cent immunity it is so critically important that we don't live in a bubble and we don't live in isolation from the world around us. As part of things like our immunisation register in this bill to strengthen and improve its integrity, we must also continue to invest in our work with our neighbours overseas. There is a feel-good aspect to that. There is a moral contribution as a good citizen, a developed country and a good global citizen to work with our neighbours. But there is also a direct national self-interest in this. When we have a look at communicable diseases we can think it's fine to have our herd immunity. But with increasing amounts of travel, with such a migrant compromised society travelling to these countries, with Australian tourists and so on we have an enormous national interest in accelerating the efforts to stamp out these diseases, both vaccine-preventable communicable diseases and also tuberculosis, malaria, HIV and so on. Indeed, the rise in Papua New Guinea, for instance—only a few hundred metres from Queensland—of drug-resistant tuberculosis and drug-resistant malaria has potentially devastating consequences for Australia.
So the link with the vaccinations, particularly, is that investment in building capability to stamp out these diseases is actually very much the other side of the coin of investment in rolling out vaccine programs, because both rely on strengthening the capability of the public health systems and the ministries of policymakers. But also when the members for Gilmore, Brand and I were traipsing around we met with the Thai royal princess. We met with government ministers—
Mrs Sudmalis: I didn't.
Mr HILL: You actually didn't have a skirt on, so you were left outside. No wearing black pants to meet the Thai royal princess, as it turns out. But that's a story for another day!
This is where the link with vaccinations comes in. We were traipsing around in the mud in Myanmar villages. From rural Myanmar right through to the regional level health centres, this is all part of the same chain. So our work in Australia to maintain our levels of immunisation is intimately linked to our work in Asia if we are to really eradicate these diseases from the world.
In closing, I will read a comment around controlling the incidence of vaccine-presentable diseases in the Australian community and how it's a critical health issue from the Australian Family Physician. It says:
Ideally, governments formulate their health policies and regulations more broadly, and are concerned with the national interest. They take into account the risks to individuals, including vulnerable groups such as children. Parents, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with the wellbeing of their child.
… … …
In accordance with legislation and case law, it is in a child’s best interest to be protected against vaccine-preventable disease. It is also in the community’s best interest that children are protected against outbreak and spread of disease. To date, this is best achieved through programs that are accessible, well communicated and supported by law …
In closing, it's the responsibility of each of us in this chamber, perhaps as parents but certainly as parliamentarians, to reinforce, at every opportunity, now and in the coming time in our roles, the validity of vaccination science to the Australian public and to promote the public health benefits of achieving full immunisation.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (11:55): I rise today to give wholehearted support to the federal government's Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. While the bill only makes minor technical changes to the No Jab, No Play arrangements, it is important to note the significance of ensuring this legislation remains effective and up to date to help safeguard the health of everyday Australians and sustain the nation's high level of immunity to many of the planet's worst infectious diseases.
While we fully support the continuing vaccination of Australian children, under this bill we understand and acknowledge the number of Australians with medical conditions who require exemptions to current arrangements. As the legislation currently stands, only GPs can grant these exemptions, which unduly affects and inconveniences this small group of people. The amendments to the bill will now allow four other medical specialists to grant these exemptions—paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious disease physicians and clinical immunologists. This not only continues to safeguard these regulations within the hands of those with the appropriate expertise but it makes common sense. In addition, the federal government will clarify the acceptance of evidence of vaccination, which can only occur through recognised vaccination providers and not through parents or the public, by amending the health and social services act to make sure it's explicit in the legislation and, therefore, very clear to the public.
This bill is a welcome addition to the immunisation program of Australia and a ringing endorsement of the benefits and positive results of immunisation in Australia and, indeed, around the world. The scientific evidence supporting the use of vaccines is overwhelming, yet this issue still refuses to be put to bed. The heat refuses to go out of it, and, if anything, at times, the temperature has increased exponentially, fuelled by many irresponsible commentators and, more locally in this country, by reckless and ridiculous commentary from One Nation, which has been spearheaded by Senator Hanson. In early March of this year, on the campaign trail for the Western Australian state election, Senator Hanson spoke on ABC's Insiders to question the safety of vaccinations generally, which many social commentators attributed to a renewed push on the issue by those against vaccinations—the antivaxxers, if you will. Those antivaxxers put the health of children in the wider community at risk through their irresponsible and unjustifiable campaigns that seek to discourage immunisation of children.
Senator Hanson has backed down from those comments, suggesting parents use a non-existent test for vaccine allergies—it's not very helpful to recommend a test that does not exist. But she has not apologised for the dangerous comments she made linking vaccines to cancer and autism. This is not only desperately irresponsible but a slap in the face of the medical profession as well as victims of both diseases and science itself.
What's even worse is the fact that the Prime Minister refused to directly condemn these comments for fear of upsetting the Liberal Party's new preference deal partner. Well, we all saw how that deal with One Nation went in the WA election. It must be remembered that these comments the Prime Minister refused to repudiate are comments that medical experts have described as dangerous and ignorant. These comments and attitudes are lifted directly from the political playbook of the alt-right and conspiracy theorists that seek, with determination and ignorance, to denigrate scientific research and denigrate the benefits that flow from it.
In this digital age, misinformation on immunisation and vaccines is rife. It's rife across the internet and easily accessible to those who are vulnerable to misleading and persuasive arguments. This boils down to a lack of solid, consistent education on the topic to combat this rise in negative attitudes. Australia must start providing a clear, thorough and well thought out message that Australia's strong immunisation program is critical to ensuring that the chances of contracting a life-threatening disease remain low. I welcome the government's commitment to a national strategy in this regard.
I and the rest of the Labor Party call on the Turnbull government to properly fund and resource the national education campaign for vaccines and immunisation, and to raise awareness of the critical importance they have to the health and wellbeing of everyday Australians. I believe the best way to refute these recent negative and misleading claims and commentary is through this national education program, which will provide irrefutable and overwhelming medical evidence and help provide a strong case to convince those Australian parents who perhaps think twice before vaccinating their child. However, I won't be holding my breath to see if any education program or, indeed, any facts will convince Senator Hanson to revoke her views.
The last thing any of us would want is a significant decline in the vaccination rate in Australia or, indeed, anything that would undermine confidence in the Immunise Australia Program. The President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Michael Gannon, said recently:
… about 8 per cent of the population are so-called vaccine hesitant, and they're looking for any information that might lead them away from what is, with the exception of clean water, probably the most significant health measure we've got.
It is absolutely essential that we have accurate information …
I agree with this, the Labor Party agrees with this and the overwhelming majority of the parliament agrees with this. Oddly enough, that's similar to the views on marriage equality. Why then does the Prime Minister refuse to outright condemn Senator Hanson and her ignorance of the issue? A slap on the wrist is hardly an adequate response.
In 2015-16, the Australian rate of immunisation averaged around 93 per cent among five year olds. My own electorate of Brand in Western Australia has similar rates, with Kwinana and Rockingham at 93.3 per cent and 92.5 per cent respectively. This is up from a 90 per cent immunisation rate of children in 2012 but still short of the desired target of 95 per cent. Those that challenge that target are ignoring the basic scientific data which requires effective immunity—herd immunity, if you like—to be maintained with consistently high levels of vaccination rates amongst population centres. It's very pleasing to me that families in my electorate are making the very positive step for the health care of their children by ensuring they are vaccinated against diseases that can kill, that can harm a child's development and that are entirely preventable. I urge all parents in my community of Brand, Rockingham and Kwinana to follow the lead of the caring community around you, take part in the excellent and critically important immunisation program and have your children vaccinated.
Right now, in Perth, we are sadly witnessing an entirely preventable measles scare. I was very sad to read that there is a young student from a Perth school who travelled to Italy—she was an unvaccinated student—and has brought back, to her school in Bibra Lake, measles. She has measles herself and, before she was diagnosed, she was in the school population spreading this disease. It is sad enough that a modern, First World country in Europe—Italy—is itself in the grip of a measles epidemic but even sadder still that an unvaccinated child from Australia should go on holiday and bring back measles to her school, where it turns out that only half of its 400 students might be vaccinated. I think it's very concerning that the Perth school at the centre of this measles scare has not taken up the offer of a special immunisation clinic to ensure that all of its students are vaccinated immediately. This was an offer put to them by the WA health department. I hope the school reconsiders. If it doesn't, I sincerely hope the parents of children in that school act quickly to ensure their children do not suffer from measles in the future. In addition to this, the school has a very wide metropolitan catchment area, so it is difficult to know what suburbs the children are from. So this measles scare could spread through the metropolitan area of Perth rather quickly if not looked at immediately.
We know that the vast majority of parents are only interested in doing what is best for their children. Having a proper, clear and well-resourced national education campaign, which I spoke of earlier, will greatly counteract the slow tide of misinformation that is seeping into the public discourse and perhaps is what leads to schools such as this one only having nearly half of their students immunised. This type of campaign has the full backing of many of Australia's peak medical and scientific bodies, such as the AMA, the Australian Academy of Science, the Public Health Association of Australia and all of Australia's medical colleges. The government has been slow to act on this idea, but we are grateful that they have finally jumped on board. However, this education program still requires further resources and attention. There should be no debate on the issue of immunisation, only more education and proactive policies to ensure higher vaccination rates. The undoubted global health benefits of immunisation deserve no less.
While I have the opportunity, I have to reflect on the fact that introducing improved education programs in vaccination is not the only thing this government has been slow to act on. Nearly four years ago the coalition was elected to government on a platform consisting of a number of policies. I won't go through them all, but one is particularly relevant. The former Prime Minister in May 2014 as opposition leader, at the moment the member for Warringah, committed:
If childcare centres want to implement 'no jab, no play' then they should be free to do so, and we will work with the states and territories to make it happen.
Nearly four years later, what has happened? Virtually nothing. While we welcome the renewed interest in and commitment to important health policy, we can add this to the tally of broken promises and failed objectives, notwithstanding the government's sudden compulsion to keep another election promise—a non-compulsory, nonbinding postal plebiscite on marriage equality.
Members opposite, when reflecting on broken promises and promises they have made in elections, could do worse than listen to or watch Emma Alberici's interview with the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, earlier this week. She points out the government's sudden obsession with keeping its election promises. To paraphrase her, she says: 'You didn't keep the promise when it came to health and education. No new taxes is what you said before the 2013 election, and you introduced a three per cent budget repair tax. You, the government, promised no cuts to the ABC and then took $44 million away from the ABC. The member for Warringah promised you would not shut any Medicare Locals. All of them are now gone. The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, promised no cuts to foreign aid and that it would grow in line with inflation. Instead it was frozen, and that represents a $7.6 billion real cut. Then there was the member for Warringah's signature policy on paid parental leave, which has also been abandoned.' The clincher was that the interviewer asked, and it is what most Australians ask, 'Why is the promise on marriage equality and the need for a plebiscite of whatever order so important to keep?' It's no wonder the Australian people are understandably confused about exactly what this government is on about with its mixed up and whacky priorities that are of no help to Australia and its people.
Returning to the No Jab, No Play policy, we will continue to give the government's commitment to this issue today the attention it deserves and we will continue to watch closely and hold them to account as this progresses.
I want, before I conclude, to reflect on a very sad story, and many of you will have heard of it. In Western Australia there's a young family who became unexpected champions of the vaccination cause of promoting immunisation. Catherine and Greg Hughes experienced the preventable tragedy of losing their son, Riley, to whooping cough. It was utterly preventable but sequences of events led to the tragedy of losing their son. I am sure that on the day their son was born they could never have imagined firstly that 32 days later he would have died from a preventable disease which the community should be immunised against but that also they would become champions of the cause of immunisation amongst pregnant women and young children across Australia. So they have set up the Immunisation Foundation of Australia, and if there are parents around Western Australia, and the country for that matter, who feel confused about immunisation I really do encourage them to look to this family, Catherine and Greg Hughes, and their cause. Their Light for Riley website can direct them to some very trustworthy information on immunisation. What happened to young Riley should not have had to happen. He was too young to be vaccinated; he came in contact at some point in his life with someone who was not vaccinated against whooping cough and that ended in tragic circumstances. His parents have since had another young daughter, and they continue to fight for what we all should fight for, to ensure that the immunisation rates in Australia, of Australian children and adults, only continue to climb.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (12:10): I want to commend the member for Brand on particularly those last comments about that family and the tragic death of their child from whooping cough. As she said, this is an entirely preventable disease. Imagine the despair, the horror and the trauma that that family went through in witnessing the death of their child from such a hideous disease and what we know is a preventable disease. I commend the member for Brand on that very powerful speech.
Whenever I speak on immunisation my thoughts always go to the book titled I Can Jump Puddlesby Alan Marshall. It is a fabulous book. I read it in primary school. I said to my team when preparing for this today: 'Can you get some quotes out of the book for me so that I can relay the firsthand experience of someone who had polio, what it was like for them and how they overcame the challenges of that disability.' It was interesting that drawing quotes from the book was very, very difficult. Some members of my team had not heard of the book or, if they had, hadn't read it. So I send a message out to schools. I know that at the moment there are a lot of challenges with school curriculums. Schools are having to juggle a lot. But, given that this issue is so contentious—and constantly so; it is back in the news now, with recent films being shown and discussions being had by some in the other chamber on the value of immunisation—I think it would be worthwhile for parents of a certain age to dust off their copies of the book I Can Jump Puddlesand give it to their children or grandchildren to read. For those in their 20s and 30s who are not aware of this really powerful novel, I suggest they go to their local library, get on Amazon or go to their local bookshop and get a copy of it and read it. If nothing has convinced you that immunisation is a vitally important protective mechanism for our community then that book will convince you. It's incredibly powerful.
As I said, this young man overcame significant adversity. He caught polio at a very young age in country Victoria, yet he achieved his dreams. I did find one quote. He writes:
It amazed me that they would imagine I would never walk again.
Imagine a child with a preventable disease being faced with the prospect of never being able to walk again. The fact is that this disease is preventable. So, do we want a recurrence of this disease? This young child, from country Victoria, was told that he would not be able to walk again. He writes:
I knew what I was going to do. I was going to break in wild horses and yell 'Ho! Ho!' and wave my hat in the air, and I was going to write a book like The Coral Island.
That was Alan Marshall's response to the hideous disease that is polio—a disease that has been eradicated from the world, thanks to immunisation. But, if we are not careful, it could rear its ugly head again and we could be facing the same scenario that children in the thirties, forties and fifties faced.
My mum, who grew up in a housing commission house in Melbourne, Victoria. She went to the local primary school and then she briefly went on to secondary school. When I was a child in the sixties and seventies, I remember my mum telling these stories about her classmates and what Melbourne looked like in a polio epidemic. This is what a city looks like when there is a polio epidemic: the city baths are shut down; all the swimming pools are shut down; and the schools are shut down. When you go back to school some of the school mates that you had before the school was shut down are not there anymore. Some have died and some have become paralysed as a result of polio; they can't come back to school. That is what it looks like to have a community with polio.
Is this the future we want for the country as a result of the resistance among some communities to be immunised?
Do we want our public places shut down? Theatres were shut down. Because it's a highly communicable disease, any place where people could catch the disease was shut down. As I said, the baths, the cinemas, the theatres, schools—all shut down. Can you imagine the trauma for young children of having your school shut down and then coming back to school with some of your classmates not there because they are dead or they are significantly paralysed and dealing with the challenges of trying to live with this significant disability?
So this is the sort of future that some of these antivaxxer people are proposing for our country. Do we want this, given the fact that this is an entirely preventable disease? Do we want this for our young people? Do we want this for our community? Do we want this for our city? Do we want this for our nation? Do we want this for our world? The ignorance of it is breathtaking. It really is. These whooping cough stories—the trauma. Can you imagine it? Particularly when you have done everything you can to protect your child, can you imagine that, through no fault of your own, you lose your child through that tragic, hideous disease?
In returning to this legislation in the time that I have left, as we know the government announced it would pursue this No Jab, No Pay laws. These allow childcare centres to turn away children who are not immunised. While some states and territories have put these laws in place, there still isn't a national approach, as my colleagues have mentioned. The ACT is one of the states and territories that are holding back in implementing any arrangements in the absence of a national approach. One of the reasons the ACT is holding out is because a national approach would ensure that the interests of some of our most vulnerable groups are taken into account. Whether it's through disadvantage, newness to Australia or unfamiliarity with the English language, some in our community may not have access to, or won't be aware about, these immunisation programs. Therefore, the ACT government's concern is there would be further disadvantage.
The benefits of a national approach will ensure that information can be communicated widely and that information will be consistent over all states and territories. It is vitally important—harmonisation of legislation, harmonisation of communication and harmonisation of implementation. There's nothing more frustrating, particularly for Defence families that move around the country every two or three years than having these incredible inconsistencies between states and territories.
We welcome the government's renewed commitment. Since they've been in office, they've done nothing on this policy. The more people who are vaccinated, the fewer opportunities a disease has to spread. The National Immunisation Program Schedule includes vaccines against a total of 16 diseases. These include the routine child vaccinations against diseases that were once incredibly fatal—measles, diphtheria and whooping cough, as have been mentioned. Included in the 16 new vaccines are the HPV and meningococcal C vaccine. That is a terrific development.
Any misinformation around the science behind vaccines is dangerous and irresponsible. It's a public health risk. Labor welcomes the government finally funding a public campaign to combat this dangerous misinformation on vaccinations. It's something we've been calling on for some time. We have written to the Prime Minister to encourage urgent action on this. Only last week we saw a screening of an antivaxx film at a large cinema in central Melbourne. This is a democracy. People are entitled to screen shows that have a different view, a different opinion. They are dangerous in the fact that they are potentially putting lives at risk with this whooping cough and, potentially, polio in the future. They are dangerous, but the thing is: this is a democracy.
We need to empower people, to put the scientific information at their fingertips so that they can counter these views that are being disseminated through these films and through other campaigns. We seem to have been seeing a resurgence in these over recent years. We must ensure that our people are well armed with information to protect themselves against these uninformed comments about vaccination. We have a strong immunisation program and it's critical to eradicating life-threatening diseases. A failure to vaccinate is a threat to public health.
What is concerning, as my colleague the member for Brand has mentioned, are the comments made earlier this year by Senator Hanson when she questioned the safety of vaccinations. This sparked renewed discussion on the value of vaccination, of immunising against preventable diseases. I understand Senator Hanson later backed down on her suggestion that parents should use a, non-existent, test for vaccine allergies, but, unfortunately, what she hasn't backed down on are her outrageous comments on children with autism and her outrageous comments linking vaccines to cancer and autism. Even though she has in some way backed down on some of those comments, she has not backed down fully. Medical experts have highlighted that her comments were ignorant and dangerous. Unfortunately, showing once again his lack of leadership, the Prime Minister could not bring himself to directly criticise and counter Senator Hanson's comments.
Our leaders need to do everything possible to ensure parents know about the deadly risks of failing to vaccinate their children—as we are doing here today—not spreading misinformation. Most importantly, they should not confuse things by making broad, misinformed statements based on ill advised scientific evidence and assumptions, and then withdrawing, partially, but not entirely, those comments so that these grey interpretations of what is actually happening in this space are still out there for people to be completely confused by.
The AMA has regularly paid tribute to the role played by family doctors in safely and effectively immunising generations of Australians against potentially deadly diseases. This is vitally important, because at is usually the first port of call for most families, particularly when they have little ones moving from the infant welfare centre, and the nurse there, up to the doctor and the local GP. There is that very early engagement, and that's why the role of the general practitioner is so vital in combating these preventable diseases.
The AMA accepts that there is still a small majority of the population that won't accept the science behind vaccinations. The AMA's president recently told Radio National that about eight per cent of the population are so-called vaccine-hesitant and are looking for any information that might lead them away from what is, with the exception of clean water, probably the most significant health mechanism we have got. That is a pretty powerful message: the most significant health measures we've got are clean water and vaccination. The facts are that vaccination plays an important role in protecting us from potentially deadly diseases like polio, whooping cough, and meningococcal disease. Polio is a highly infectious disease caused by a virus that invades the nervous system. It can cause total paralysis in a matter of hours and also death. Until the 1950s it crippled thousands and thousands of children every year in industrialised countries. But soon after the introduction of effective vaccines in the fifties and sixties polio was under control and practically eliminated as a public health problem in these countries.
The polio immunisation program is the best example of the transformative power of immunisation against preventable diseases. The polio immunisation program is absolutely the most powerful campaign and powerful education program in terms of talking to people about polio and about how, thanks to immunisation, it has been eradicated from our world. I ask anyone who in any way doubts this to go out—go to your library, bookshop, Amazon—and get out a copy of I Can Jump Puddles by Alan Marshall and see what it's like to live with polio, see the tragedy of polio and the challenges of polio and see that you can overcome in the end.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (12:25): I am the proud parent of Nicholas, who last week turned one year old—a very enthusiastic one-year-old, just finding his feet and taking his first tentative steps. At this age, it is normal for parents to be concerned with things like choking hazards and them falling flat on their faces. What I shouldn't be worrying about is whether or not Nicholas will be at risk of contracting preventable diseases when he goes to day care or starts school. I am deeply concerned about the wave of parents choosing not to vaccinate their children and the implications this can have on families like mine and so many others in my electorate and across the nation.
Just this week the WA health department has had to step in and stop the spread of measles in a Perth school, where up to 200 unvaccinated children are now at risk of contracting the virus. In fact, Perth has one of the worst childhood immunisation rates in the country, according to a report recently released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The report states that some suburbs in Perth have vaccination rates as low as 80 per cent compared to the national average of 93 per cent. We are, indeed, at risk of losing our herd protection in some places in my state.
While I can appreciate the recent commentary around the supposed side effects of vaccines, which may have some parents thinking twice before booking their kids in for routine jabs, the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that vaccines save lives. The theory that forms the crux of this antivaxxer movement is that vaccines cause autism. This is based on a 1998 study published in a medical journal that 'found' a link between vaccines and autism, saying one in 100 were at risk. That journal later retracted that information because it was found to have been falsified. The author of the study was reportedly set to benefit from lawsuits that relied on the data he had published. But the damage had already been done, and the antivaxxer movement is, alas, in full swing. Even if vaccines did cause autism—which they don't—they still massively reduce the risk of other diseases, like diphtheria, polio, meningitis, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, mumps, whooping cough, pneumonia, retrovirus, rubella, smallpox, tinnitus and chicken pox, all of which can be fatal.
It must be said that the approach of No Jab, No Pay is a compulsion by the state to take a risk. It is, overall, a harm-minimisation approach where side effects may, in a very small proportion of the population, occur. But it is for the greater good. Importantly, to not do so would result in much greater harm not only to the population at large but also it is more likely to result in harm to those that may be susceptible to those side effects from vaccination. This balancing act is a difficult one but, after much consideration, I believe we have landed in the right place.
Amanda Young was a young and talented 18-year-old, living in my electorate of Burt, who died tragically after contracting meningococcal septicaemia. She was an inspiring young woman possessing many skills and passions and was a much-loved daughter of Barry and Lorraine. She was talented, hardworking in sports, academics and music, and throughout her life excelled in competitive sport as well as many other areas in her school life and at university. Amanda attended an intervarsity rowing competition regatta in Penrith, in October 1997, where she, tragically, contracted meningococcal disease and died at the age of 18. She was only a year or so older than I was.
Amanda's legacy lives on because her parents established the Amanda Young Foundation, with the aim of reducing deaths in WA from meningococcal disease and supporting survivors of the disease. They are, of course, big promoters of these vaccines. I mention this because it makes clear how important it is that we make sure we have a strong national education campaign to support the No Jab, No Pay policy and the importance of vaccination. With so much misinformation making its way into our mainstream discussion, it is incredibly important that the government assumes leadership on the role and presents Australian parents with the clear facts.
I am hopeful that our discussion of this bill in this place today may encourage the government to commit more to a national education campaign—a campaign that can learn from the work that's been done by organisations like the Amanda Young Foundation, which serve as such a sobering reminder of what can happen when people do not have access to necessary vaccines. In particular, I hope that this debate will serve to dispel some of the myths and misinformation that have been propagated—indeed, by some of the elected representatives in this parliament.
But, as well as promoting vaccination, it's also important that parents have access to vaccinations. Last year we were confronted with a shortage of meningococcal B vaccination. The Labor Party took issue with this and wrote to the government to express its concerns and urged it to make sure that we didn't find ourselves with this shortage again and that it be resolved. While more meningococcal B vaccinations have now been made available to the Australian public, there are still concerns that the amount available to the public is not enough to meet demand that may arise in the course of the coming year or so. That should be resolved.
I support this bill because it clarifies some of the detail around No Jab, No Pay arrangements. But I think it is important that we use this opportunity to shine a light on the issues related to childhood vaccination and the misinformation about it that is propagated. I hope the government does more to restore public confidence in our vaccination regimes and that it restores confidence in the science behind vaccination and the integrity of the vaccination program more broadly.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (12:31): I thank all of the members who have spoken in this chamber on the Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It has the support of the House on a bipartisan basis, and, indeed, I believe, by all members of the House. In particular, I want to thank the opposition. It's unusual to say this, but I think the opposition spokesperson gave a wonderful, powerful and moving speech about her own family circumstances, and it deserves to be acknowledged as one of the motivations behind her, and the opposition's, support for stronger immunisation. She had a major loss, and I want to acknowledge and appreciate that. Hopefully, the work we've done with Polio Australia will also provide a way forward for others who have been victims of polio.
I want to address this bill in three phases: firstly, the overarching task in relation to immunisation and vaccination in Australia; secondly, what we will be doing with awareness; and, thirdly, where the bill fits in. We know that we currently have a 93 per cent rate of immunisation in Australia. That has increased significantly. It's the work of consecutive governments. But perhaps our signature effort in that space has been the No Jab, No Pay program. It is in many ways a tough measure, but unapologetically so. I want to acknowledge my predecessor, the member for Farrer, who has really been the pioneer in this space. It may be that, in 10 or 20 years time, she looks back on this as the most important thing from her time in parliament, because, in the end, it will have saved a lot of lives. So I thank and acknowledge her work.
We know that, since the introduction of No Jab, No Pay, the government has seen an extra 210,000 children vaccinated. Those vaccination rates have gone up to 93 per cent, as I said. We have an interim target—because, in the end, it's got to be 100 per cent, minus anybody with a medical exemption—of 95 per cent. We have to keep pushing towards that. Interestingly, some of the highest rates of vaccination in the country are in Indigenous communities, where there has been very strong support for the No Jab, No Pay program, which is a real tribute to the Indigenous community health leaders.
We then move on to what we are doing with awareness. We will shortly be launching the major component of the $5½ million awareness campaign. That awareness is built around the principle that it's not just safe but it saves lives—that your child or somebody else's child could be at risk. We have seen the outbreak of measles in Western Australia at the moment. I have to say to the school involved: please rethink your philosophy on this, because there are 200 kids who are at risk right now.
At a broader level, I want to categorically denounce, in a way that I do not usually do, the antivaccination movement. Unfortunately, this is not a science-based movement. Their comments and approach threaten the lives of young children and people of all ages—but particularly the young and the elderly—whose immune systems are not robust. There is a bipartisan approach to rejecting the antivaccination movement. There was a unanimous response to a Commonwealth initiative at last Friday's Council of Australian Governments health ministers meeting to denounce and reject the antivaccination movement and their material. Our campaign will commence shortly, giving confidence to parents but also telling the stories of families who have suffered from the lack of vaccination by those around them. Think of whooping cough. The Prime Minister and I have met, tragically, with family sufferers where a beautiful little baby was lost because, prior to the ability to vaccinate a very young child, that child was brought within a care situation where others had not vaccinated their children. A mother held her little baby as it literally choked to death in the first few weeks of life. These are strong, powerful reminders to all of us that you don't play with vaccinations.
That then brings me to the bill. There has been strong support through the House, and, again, I thank all members who've spoken and all sides of the House for their support. This bill makes minor amendments to the Australian Immunisation Register Act. In addition to general practitioners, it allows paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious disease physicians and clinical immunologists to assess that a young individual has a contraindication to a vaccine or a natural immunity to a disease. It actually provides some of the protections that some of the critics want. It makes the system even more robust, so it saves time and cost. But, above all else, it protects those patients who might be in the absolute minority. The bill also makes a minor amendment to paragraph 9(b) of the Australian Immunisation Register Act to make it explicit in the legislation that the Australian Immunisation Register can only accept vaccination information provided by recognised vaccination providers and not that provided by members of the public. Again, that's about protecting the integrity of the system.
Ultimately, I want to commend the bill to the House. I want to thank our extraordinary medical researchers. I want to thank all of those who are on the front line helping to issue the vaccinations, whether it's our doctors, our nurses or our maternal healthcare workers who work right across the state. The ultimate message here is that vaccinations save lives. Our national goal is a 95 per cent interim target and, subject to any medical exemptions, 100 per cent national vaccination coverage.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Sitting suspended from 12:38 to 16:00
CONDOLENCES
Sciacca, Hon. Concetto Antonio 'Con', AO
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 21 June 2017, of the Honourable Concetto Antonio (Con) Sciacca AO, a former Minister and Member of this House for the Division of Bowman, 1987-1996 and 1998-2004, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (16:00): Con Sciacca was a figure much larger than life and a great character of Australian politics. It is right and proper that this House pays its respects to him and regrets his untimely passing, which was far too early. Of course, Con's great achievement in this House was as Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and he was a very, very good one. It was a portfolio which he asked the then Prime Minister, Prime Minister Keating, for. I was here at that time, not as a member of parliament but around the building, and I remember Con arranging briefings about Australia Remembers, the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, which was very much his initiative, one which he carried out with great gusto, and was an outstanding success. He was also a very dedicated member of the House in terms of servicing his constituents and ensuring that their needs were met and that they had a strong voice in this House.
However, of course, while I was aware of Con and saw him and met him when he was a minister, it was only after he'd left parliament that I really came to know him and came to know him very well. He became a friend of mine, as he was to so many in the House, particularly on this side of the House. I want to say this about Con Sciacca: he was a generous man. I don't mean by way of money, I don't mean by way of resources, but I mean he was generous in terms of his support, his time and his care for members who were young and who were trying to find their way through this House—always quick with advice but never quick to interfere; when asked, always happy to oblige with advice and with support and to give every support possible. I came to know Con in that context, first in his support of myself, as he got to know me and was very willing and obliging to provide that advice and support, and then in his support of others, including the member for Oxley, who has just joined us, and other members, particularly in Queensland but not exclusively in Queensland, not only in Queensland. He was always there, always at the other end of the phone, always willing to take the call, always happy to oblige and always willing to accommodate. It's that generosity of spirit that I talk of today.
As I said, I came to know him well. I shared many jokes and laughs with him. Of course, he was a Member of the Order of Australia, but he was very honoured to hold Italian honours as well, as did my distinguished predecessor as member for Prospect, the Hon. Janice Crosio, who was a Cavaliere of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, but, as Con would point out to me with great glee, he held a higher honour, as I understand it: the equivalent of a knight, Grand Cross of the Italian Republic. He would correct my Italian pronunciation, which is very ordinary, of these particular honours, and we would have long talks about that and about many aspects of Australian politics.
I didn't want to detain the House today, but simply to add my condolences to those of other honourable members. Con Sciacca was a good man with a big heart and a huge personality. I miss him. It's common to say in these things, 'It's hard to believe he's gone,' but it is really hard to believe that Con Sciacca has gone. He was always there, and I think I speak for members in this House when I say he always will be there in our hearts and he will always be remembered. Although he is no longer there at the other end of the phone—his number's in my phone—I look at it wistfully, thinking, for the first time, he won't answer. But I know that he always wanted the Labor Party, which he loved so much, to prosper and to do well. And he would want that after he was gone—as he wanted his nation to do well.
Our condolences to his family, some of whom I have come to know, not all of them, through my friendship with Con, and I know they much loved him, as we all did, and they miss him even more than we do. But they can take pride in his great achievements as an Australian. Although there were times, I am sure, when they missed him, they could always be proud of him. And although they miss him now, they can always be proud of him into the future.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:05): I am honoured to stand today to talk in respect and memory of Con Sciacca. It would have been the beginning of 1991 when I first met Con and his son, Sam, was in my year at school at Nudgee college. The first time I met Con—the members opposite will probably enjoy this—I had made a speech at the start of the school year to the school community, and parents and friends must have been there, too. Having made that speech—probably being school captain, I would say, is why I had that gig—Con came up afterwards. I had never met the man and didn't know who he was. Con called out to me. I turned around and went over, as you do, and introduced myself. He didn't introduce himself. He just said, 'Mate, you need to join the Labor Party!' So they were Con's first words to me. The great thing was, when I explained, 'Well, Mr Sciacca,' once I had come to know who he was, 'I'm, actually, the other way inclined when it comes to politics,' he was brilliant. He made it very clear, when I told him I am not a Labor man, that that's okay by him; as long as I'm a good bloke, that's all right by Con. That was Con, and it was Con ever after.
I stand in this chamber today not as a person for the Labor movement. I don't stand here as a relative of Con's, nor do I stand here today as a previous parliamentary colleague of Con's. Con, later in life, whether it be by SMS, email or in person, would refer to me as 'old mate'. So maybe I stand here today as one of his many old mates—not an old mate that Con would necessarily ring up to confide in and share his deepest thoughts. Yet such was the man that when you met him you would know that he was completely open, brutally open, with his honesty, which was just so valuable. An old mate, I suppose, I may have been to Con, not in the sense that he would ring me up and we would knock around together, but once you did socialise with Con, such was the man that he would make you feel as though you were the centre of the earth. He would make you feel so special. That's who he was. He was such a generous, larger-than-life, charismatic character.
Where I think my relationship with Con developed, strangely enough, was through the tragedy of death. In 1991, when Con's son, Sam, and I were in the same year at Nudgee college, a student in our year, Adam Monahan, sadly took his own life by jumping off the Gateway Bridge in Brisbane. This had an enormous effect on the school community, not to mention the family. Con, being in this parliament and able to wield a bit of influence, went to great lengths to ensure that barriers were installed either side of that Gateway Bridge. The numbers of people who sought to jump off that bridge dropped by somewhere over 85 per cent within a year of them being installed. Thus, through the tragedy that occurred with that family and that boy, Adam, who was a friend of ours at school, Con delivered. He got a tangible outcome that has subsequently, no doubt, saved lives. When you think of the 2½ thousand or more Australians who take their lives every single year, that is nearly seven a day. Con Sciacca sought to do his bit.
A year later, in 1992, of greater personal tragedy to Con was the passing of his son, Sam, who was in my year, from a rare bone cancer. You can imagine the impact this had on Con. Con was, in my view, first and foremost a family man. Losing his boy, Sam—or, Sammy, as he would call him—had an enormous impact on Con. It was a pleasure to attend the launch of a fellowship that he started soon thereafter, with the Labor Party, in honour of his son. Sam was not unlike Con. Does anyone remember grade 12 videos? You may have done one at school yourselves. We did a video in our year 12, when Sammy was going through his treatment. As soon as the video camera came around, he had no problems with taking his hat off and showing his bald head. He was then an 18-year-old boy, one year from passing away. He knew what his limited future held. But his was a big personality. He had a big smile. He was happy for the world to see his shaved head. Before Christmas, as I sat with Con Sciacca on his patio at the top of the tower in the CBD—Con sat with his shirt off, totally relaxed, just like Sammy—he spoke very openly about looking forward to the day when he would be reunited with him.
So, I say from this side of the House, but probably more personally just from me and maybe also from those whom I went to school with, that we send our greatest sympathies to the Sciacca family. It was a privilege to attend the funeral. Con was about family. He was about friends, which I came to realise. As we saw on 30 June at St Stephen's Cathedral, he was also a man of faith. Family, faith and friends. God bless Con Sciacca and may he rest in peace. Thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): I thank the member for those very heartfelt remarks.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:12): I rise to associate myself with the condolence motion. I have spoken in this parliament about the life of Con Sciacca, and today I want to read into the Hansard to put on record the beautiful words that have been written by the Hon. Stirling Hinchliffe and the Hon. Paul Lucas. It is a wonderful tribute to our dear friend, the Hon. Con Sciacca AO. As we heard from the member for McMahon and the member for Fairfax, a beautiful service was held on 30 June and was attended by the Governor of Queensland, the Queensland Premier, former prime ministers and former premiers. There were beautiful tributes by Con's dear, dear friend the Hon. Santo Santoro and the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten.
It is often said that in Labor we make the saints, and surely with the passing of Con Sciacca we have lost one of our greatest. Con Sciacca exemplified everything about true public service: selflessness, empathy, relentless hard work and a passion to improve the lives of all citizens of this beloved country. Con Sciacca was a walking, talking example of what migrants contribute to this country. Aged four, he arrived in Australia from Sicily. He did law the hard way, the solicitor's board, while working full-time and helping to support his family. Not born to wealth or with contacts to give him a kick-start in life, Con worked hard in establishing his own law firm from scratch—a firm that ultimately became Queensland's largest local Labor law firm, where many prominent lawyers, politicians and union officials got their first start. It was also where they learned the value of hard work and an absolute commitment to customer satisfaction.
As an active member of Young Labor from the start, Con made national contacts at a very early age. His politics were always moderate, his debating style emphatic and his socialising legendary. He was the Queensland Young Labor president in 1972, the year that I was born. In these times, it is not uncommon for young operators to think their talents demand accommodation in a safe seat or, worse still, to complain, agitate or rat when things did not go their own way. Always a betting man, Con Sciacca had a number of false starts along the way. No-one is really fully baptised in Labor until they have had a kick in the guts and come up trumps. Con would cop the setbacks and defeats just as well as the victories—a lesson for those who presume their talents and skills will always be recognised by the party and endorsed by the electorate.
In 1969, he unsuccessfully contested the safe Liberal state seat of Mount Coot-tha. In 1977, 1980 and 1985, which was a by-election, he contested the marginal National Party seat of Redlands. His campaign was remarkable. He took defeats and disappointment with good grace. Alongside his life-long friend Brian Kilmartin, Con joined the Labor Forum, or the right-wing faction, in Queensland. When times were tough, they became some of the pillars of support for all who have joined ever since. Con worked hard and, together with his outstanding campaign director, Joan Budd, won a hard-fought preselection and went on to become the federal member for Bowman from 1987 to 1996 and then from 1998 to 2004.
Sciacca was an outstanding success and, no doubt, the first Queensland MP to run his office in a modern fashion. He ran his office with the productivity of his law firm—dictating letters and actioning memos on his hand-held recorder with ever-mounting piles of tapes for processing. He was accessible and media friendly. His talent and hard work paid off in a promotion to the ministerial office. He was most proud of his achievements as Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the Keating government. His work in securing a better deal for veterans was legendary, including in long-running compensation and justice issues. He's particularly remembered for his Australia Remembers campaign of recognition for those hundreds of thousands of Australians who served this country—whose service abroad and at home was acknowledged. In many respects, this was the key early factor in encouraging all of us to reflect on their sacrifices and schools and communities to attend and commemorate veteran services in ever-increasing numbers.
Such was the regard he was held in, the RSL made him an honorary life member—an extraordinary accolade for a non-service person—for his service to veterans. His work in this field and other fields was recognised via his appointment in 2006 as an Officer of the Order of Australia for service to ex-service personnel, cancer research institutions and the Australian parliament. Sciacca's service was also recognised, as we've heard, by the governments of Italy and Finland, who respectfully awarded him the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic—one of Italy's highest honours—and a Commander of the Order of the Lion of Finland.
Sciacca made many friends in his time in federal politics. He was capable of playing politics very hard but always with honour and decency. This gained him friendships from all sides of politics—maybe drawing the lines at the Greens. After leaving federal parliament—if anything—he increased his political activity, if that was possible, and actively fundraised and supported Labor candidates from right across the party. But, in particular, he was a supporter and confidante to Labor Forum members and senators. His fundraising lunches were legendary. The business community clamoured to attend as they were entertaining as well as informative. His introductions of attendees around the table often had the audience in stitches. No-one was left out, and all felt important and part of the family.
Con was the founding chairman of public affairs and lobbying company SAS Group. However, he was very reluctant to lobby friends. He had a clear distinction and strong ethical boundaries that were the cornerstone to his and their continued high standing all around. Sciacca had many close long-standing personal friends—people like Bill Ludwig, Bob Hawke and Kim Beazley. He didn't desert mates when they fell on hard times. Equally, he was happy to assist around the country in fundraising, particularly at Labor Party dinners attended by the Italian community.
Con Sciacca never sought appointments post political office. His reward was to help and see success in others. He may have cultivated a persona of a tough operator, and he certainly could be one, but he was far more a friend than an enemy, a supporter than a detractor and a planner than a plotter. Con was devastated by the loss of his son Sammy, who was 19 years old. He was devastated by the loss of his mother, to whom he was devoted. He had a large and loving family. He doted on his daughter, Zina, who reciprocated in spades, and was smitten by his beautiful granddaughter Gracie. He was so happy with his wife, Karen, and her unwavering love and support, and he treated her sons, Nick and Daniel, as his own and was very proud of them.
Concetto Sciacca passed away just a week after his 70th birthday—a happy and joyous occasion surrounded by family, close friends and extraordinary amounts of Sicilian food washed down by his beautiful signature Elderton Command Shiraz. Con was an extraordinary person in my life and the lives of so many others. Rest in peace, Con.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Federation Chamber.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (16:19): by leave—I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Yunupingu, Dr G
Consideration resumed.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (16:20): It really is a tremendous privilege to rise to acknowledge the passing of Dr G Yunupingu today on the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, of all days. Dr G Yunupingu lived such an incredibly full life that touched so many of us in so many different ways. He was taken from us altogether too soon at the age of 46 on 25 July this year.
For those who are not familiar with Dr G Yunupingu's musical work, I will take them, if I may, through a very, very brief discography of albums of his which were very close to my heart. I will set out very briefly in this place the reasons for that. He was a wonderful singer-songwriter of the most unique talents I have ever heard in relation to both his ability to convey such meaning through his music, regardless of whether one had any real sense of his traditional language or not, and his inspirational guitar playing. He played a traditional right-handed guitar upside down and left-handed, as he was left-handed. For those who are not aware, Dr G Yunupingu was born blind. I would like to come back to that a little bit later on as well.
In about 2008 he released his first album, which was a self-titled album. Out of respect to his family and his culture I won't repeat the name of the album, but I would thoroughly impress upon any of those listening or reading this later in Hansard to do themselves a favour and get a copy of that album. It is truly remarkable. A couple of the early tracks on that album set the scene for the evocative nature of Dr G Yunupingu's words, such as Wiyathul, Bapa or History (I Was Born Blind). If any of you have the opportunity to take a trip, particularly across the top end of our country, and drive through the red dirt heading through either East Kimberley or Arnhem Land, just do one thing for me—or one thing, more to the point, for Dr Yunupingu's family and foundation—listen to those tunes as you take in the most remarkable piece of countryside. I defy anyone not to be profoundly affected by just how powerful his music was. That album was both a critical and commercial success and certainly set the stage for a remarkable piece of musicology to be played throughout the country and throughout the world. That was followed up by another tremendously successful album, called Rrakala. I hope I have done justice to the pronunciation of Dr G Yunupingu's second album. That was followed by many more pieces of music of critical acclaim.
There were just two moments when I personally had the great privilege of meeting this great man, both of which were really quite profound in their own ways. The first was many years ago in a tiny little obscure art studio in the west end of Fremantle where he was doing a gig for a charitable foundation. I cannot remember the precise name of the foundation. But the way in which he filled this small studio with his presence and his music was something that I will never forget. It made the hair on the back of my neck and on my arms stand up right from the start of his gig to the end of it. I couldn't believe just how he had the ability to draw everyone in to his music, most of it—almost all of it—sung in traditional language and in a very gentle tone. You could hear a pin drop through almost the entire gig.
The presence that he had was then replicated a couple of years later, when, again, acknowledging his foundation, the Yunupingu Foundation, he had a gig on the lawns of Kings Park. What was really interesting about that was that it was a very similar gig with similar music, again from his self-titled album and some other albums, but he drew everyone in. There were thousands and thousands of people sitting on that lawn, and he had precisely the same effect, telling his dahwul, which, as I understand, is traditional language for 'his story'. He had that presence again. It was so unique, it was so earthy, it was so heartfelt and it was so authentic that it impressed upon me like very few artists ever have.
Dr G Yunupingu didn't just touch us all and his community through his music. Mr Michael Hohnen, his long-term musical collaborator, partner and friend, told me earlier today about the inception of the Yunupingu Foundation. As I understand it, Dr G Yunupingu and Michael were in a studio in some wonderful surrounds in New York and Dr G Yunupingu reflected upon how he felt so incredibly lucky to be able do what he loved, to be able to express how he felt, to thousands, if not millions, of people around the world, and here he was, a million miles away from his traditional lands and in New York. He remarked to Michael, 'How is it that I have come to enjoy this life and others can't?' From that the Yunupingu Foundation was born. The Yunupingu Foundation—and I would encourage all of you to have a look at it on the website—simply seeks to empower Aboriginal Australians, kids in particular, to reach their goals and to reach their full potential through the ability of music and, in particular, to promote and celebrate traditional music and to ensure that every kid is given the opportunity to express themselves and what they are feeling and what they are hearing: warpum bukmak, which is 'everywhere to everyone' in traditional language.
From there, the foundation grew. In acknowledgement and celebration of Dr G Yunupingu's life, we have the ability now to draw inspiration from what he's done, to support the foundation, and I would encourage all of you to simply do that, to ensure not only that Dr G Yunupingu's music lives on in all of us, everywhere all the time, but that the Dr G Yunupingus of the future get a similar chance to sit in that studio in New York with life-long collaborators to bring their unique sound to the world.
I am pleased to say that, again, the legacy that Dr G Yunupingu has left will continue at the appropriate time, harking back to that gig in Kings Park, where we heard some new music for the first time. At an appropriate time, with the appropriate amount of grieving to be had, as I understand matters, there will be forthcoming music from Dr G Yunupingu that we can continue to enjoy. But I struggle to get past the lyrics of his 'History (I was Born Blind)', on that first self-titled album, which is sung both in language but also in English. The words are telling. He sings:
united we stand, divided we fall
together we'll stand, in solidarity
It just says so much about what he achieved during his short time on this earth in bringing people together, of all cultures, of all tongues, in music—all over the world, from Barack Obama to the Queen, to those living in outback communities, to some bloke in Perth that he'd never met in his entire life, who was completely transfixed by his music, to all of us. So, to Dr G Yunupingu's family and friends, we use this time in this place to appropriately acknowledge the tremendous and unique work that you brought forward in the past, right now in the present and most certainly into the future. Condolences to Dr G Yunupingu. It was a great privilege to be able to stand here and tell his dahwul, or his story.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (16:30): It is with great sadness and respect that I rise in this place today, International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, on what is first-nation peoples' land and will always be first-nation peoples' land. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land upon which we stand, the Ngunnawal people, and I would like to pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I would also like to acknowledge the Galiwinku people, the traditional owners of Arnhem Land—the land from which Dr G Yunupingu came—and pay my respects to their leaders past, present and emerging.
On 26 July 2017, Australia lost a truly remarkable man who was an Australian legend and who was also a first-nation man. We lost a first-nation man whose voice was unique—a voice that crossed boundaries, a voice that sent a very powerful message about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights, and a voice and a message that will live on into eternity. I, like so many others, was deeply touched by the ethereal voice of Dr G Yunupingu. It was only last Saturday morning that I heard a rendition of Amazing Grace, which is one of my favourite songs, on the radio, and he was singing and playing. He rose to fame with Yothu Yindi, and went on to have a very successful solo career.
Born blind, Dr G Yunupingu first picked up a guitar at the age of six and, incredibly—being left-handed—he learned to play it upside down. His unique voice spawned a career that saw him sell more than half a million albums recorded in his native Yolngu language; and perform for audiences around the world, including Queen Elizabeth II and former US President Barack Obama. Having hit triple platinum in Australia and silver in the UK, having charted in multiple other countries across the globe and having won a string of ARIA awards, Dr G Yunupingu is the highest selling first-nation artist in history and one of the most important figures in Australian music.
Many people will remember Dr G Yunupingu for his extraordinary, amazing voice, but his community will also remember him for his strong activism. We pay our respects to a man who was famous in the music world internationally but who was also denied a ride in a taxi because of the colour of his skin. Dr G Yunupingu gave back to his community, as he was the driving force behind the G Yunupingu Foundation, creating opportunities for youth across the Northern Territory. Given Dr G Yunupingu's strong activism and hard work for first-nation peoples' rights, it would be unjust of me to stand in this place and not continue speaking on the fight for first-nation peoples' rights and recognition.
The loss of Australia's most prominent musician, Dr G Yunupingu, to kidney disease has shone a light on what some doctors are describing as a largely preventable renal health nightmare afflicting remote communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are up to seven times more likely to need treatment for chronic illnesses than non-Indigenous Australians, and the inequality in transplants is horrifying. It is 25 years since former Prime Minister Paul Keating's infamous and moving Redfern speech, where he compared a non-Indigenous patient in Surry Hills, Sydney, and a first-nation patient of the same age and illness in Redfern, right next door: the first-nation patient had a third of a chance of a kidney transplant. This fact is a blemish on governments and our health systems. More than 25 years on, as elected representatives we must have an honest look in the mirror and reflect upon what genuine change has occurred in closing the gap for our first-nation people.
I am proud to represent the Herbert electorate, which has a large first-nation population and includes Palm Island—one of the largest discrete Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia. Dr Yunupingu's passing is a time to reflect on the first-nation community that I represent and the inequality that the Palm Island community faces. Access to health services is harder for the Bwgcolman people than for people on the mainland. Unemployment rates are significantly higher; access to housing is incredibly difficult; and the cost of living is astronomical, as is the case in most communities in the Northern Territory. As elected representatives we must do more for our first-nation people. If we say that we are an inclusive community, then we must actually acknowledge that there are communities being left behind—communities that need to be engaged and respected to move forward in a positive and meaningful way.
To lose an Australian legend at age 46 to an illness that could have been prevented is completely unacceptable, especially when it is related to the colour of his skin and the location of his community and home. This is a national tragedy. What is even sadder is that this has not just happened once; it is happening today. Whilst we pay due respect to an Australian legend who happened to be a first-nation man and had a voice that was truly extraordinary, we must also remember to commit to addressing the health inequality in this country. As elected representatives we must listen to and work with our first-nation communities. We must strive every day to ensure we are closing the gap on inequality for our first-nation people.
I pay deep respect and offer my sympathy to Dr G Yunupingu's family. May his legacy, through his voice, song and message, live on.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:36): I rise to pay respect to Dr G Yunupingu. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the lands of the Ngunnawal people, and I pay respect to them. On this important day, International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, I feel so privileged and honoured to be doing so. I rise to echo the comments made by my colleagues the member for Perth and the member for Herbert on Dr G Yunupingu's passing, and I rise to pay respect to a community that lost not only a great man but a great musician, whose life has been cut unreasonably short.
He was a man who achieved so much with so little to start with—nine ARIA award nominations, five ARIA awards, Northern Territory's Australian of the Year in 2009, an honorary degree of Doctor of Music from the University of Sydney in 2012 and 2016 Artist of the Year at the NAIDOC Awards. Yunupingu represented the soul of original language and music of Indigenous communities. He brought the Northern Territory to the world, and he could play any instrument and sing like an angel. Yunupingu started his music by playing guitar upside down because he was left-handed. But, even with all of those achievements to his credit, we find ourselves here today mourning his premature death at age 46. Indigenous disadvantage is a scourge on our society. As Bill Shorten said yesterday:
It is the hard truth of Australia's unfinished business that this superstar could delight a packed house and be refused a cab ride home afterwards.
Dr Yunupingu's death came about from complications from contracting hepatitis B as a child, a disease that can be vaccinated against. Indigenous Australians are up to seven times more likely to need treatment for chronic illness than non-Indigenous Australians; and when it comes to renal health, a largely preventable disease, the figures are much worse. In a recent story in TheSydney Morning Herald, Dr Yunupingu's specialist, Dr Lawton, noted:
Compared to a non-indigenous patient in Surry Hills in Sydney, an indigenous patient with the same age and illness in Redfern right next door has a third of the chance of a kidney transplant …
An indigenous patient from east Arnhem … has a 10th of the chance of transplantation of a non-indigenous person from east Arnhem.
In remote areas of Australia, end-stage kidney disease is up to 20 times higher for Indigenous Australians than it is for non-Indigenous Australians. We see the figures; we know the gaps. But what is happening?
I recently attended the rally in Alice Springs and had the opportunity to visit the Santa Teresa community, approximately 100 kilometres south-east of Alice Springs. The Santa Teresa community is not as remote as some others, but it brought home to me that the things that are simple for people in our metropolitan communities are not so simple for their communities—like water, a very basic necessity. The community had an orchard, and, by all accounts, one that was providing self-sufficiency. One day, a pipe got a leak. It went unnoticed until the town's water bill arrived. Of course, it was quite a shock, and it couldn't be paid. What do you think the local government's decision was to deal with the issue? They disconnected the water. Now they have no orchard. Could you imagine that happening in the city and the outrage that would ensue, even in a community like mine? If this is the response on something so fundamental, then how are more complex matters being handled—matters like preventive health, job creation, education and family services?
The Prime Minister handed down the Closing the Gap report in 2017, which shows the redoubling effort we absolutely need to make. The target to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031 is nowhere near on track. The Indigenous rate of mortality from cancer, the second-leading cause of death, is rising and the gap is widening, not closing. The target to halve the gap in reading and numeracy for Indigenous students by 2018 is also not on track. The latest data shows that, of the eight areas measured—reading and numeracy for years 3, 5, 7 and 9—only one, year 9 numeracy, is on track for Indigenous Australians. The target to halve the gap in employment by 2018 is also not on track, while there has been an increase in the Indigenous employment rate since 1994, there has been a decline since 2008. In 2014-15 the Indigenous employment rate was 48.4 per cent, compared with 72.6 per cent for non-Indigenous Australians. Geography is an important factor in Indigenous employment. In 2014-15, 35.1 per cent of Indigenous people of working age in very remote areas were employed, compared with 57.5 per cent of those in major cities.
We see these top-line figures and we see the inequality and disadvantage. But the stark reminder is the individual story, and Dr G Yunupingu's story represents that stark reminder. Dr G Yunupingu was trapped in a cycle of bad health from contracting hepatitis B which left him with liver and kidney disease; his death would have been preventable in most circumstances. Research conducted as part of Closing the Gap was clear: the poorer health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when compared to the non-Indigenous population is no secret. And something can be done about it. It takes will. The facts are that growing up as an Aboriginal child in remote Australia, Dr Yunupingu was less likely to receive the basic healthcare that other Australian children enjoy. As an adult, he suffered the complications of hepatitis B, a disease that can be avoided, by a simple vaccination. It was some irony that this year's NAIDOC theme—Our Language Matters—highlights the protection and regeneration needed for Aboriginal languages. It is an important theme, because it celebrates the unique and essential role that Aboriginal language plays in cultural identity.
Dr Yunupingu's highlighting of language through his music was vital. Yunupingu contributed so much to language, music and culture, not just to the Australian Aboriginal community but to the broader community. This should be treasured and honoured. Language links people to their land and water and is part of the communication of history, spirituality and rituals through stories and songs. In Aboriginal traditions across the country people sing to maintain connections, to have fun and to preserve traditions.
Yolngu Matha is the name of a group of languages and dialects that are among the last 13 or so groups of languages that are still strong and are spoken by all generations in their communities for all purposes identified in the most comprehensive survey of Australian languages in 2014. They are the last of what is now estimated to be as many as 407 languages. We must preserve language and build on it, and music plays a vital role. Dr Yunupingu's music draws on ancient stories of his people that resonate across all human experience. Out of this terrible demise, however, is the opportunity to re-dedicate ourselves to finishing and answering the hard truths.
We have lost an inspiring and passionate leader, an artist and advocate for our endangered Aboriginal Australian languages, because his health was compromised through entirely preventable diseases. My heartfelt condolences to his family and friends. May he rest in peace.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (16:44): Firstly, let me acknowledge the Ngunawal and Ngambri traditional owners of the country on which we are speaking today. I do that because of my respect for them but most particularly because I am now addressing the parliament about the death of a great Australian, a Gumatj leader, Dr G Yunupingu from Galiwinku in north-east Arnhem Land. I want to thank the members for Perth, Herbert and Lindsay for their contributions, all of which I listened to.
Others have traversed his musical genius. I will touch on it very briefly. We know that, born blind, he began experimenting as a small child with sticks on a drum, with an empty can. His uncle then provided him with a guitar, which he learned to play, but upside-down, which of itself would be a difficult thing to do. He became known to us, thankfully, all across the world for his magnificence as a musician, singer and songwriter. I don't think anyone could not be touched by his music and by his wonderful voice. Very few people, I think, could actually make the impression that he did on the world, speaking and singing a language that the rest of the world didn't understand, but he did.
His debut album, Gurrumul, sold half a million copies, as a self-titled album, reaching triple platinum in Australia. His second solo album, Rrakala, released in April 2011, hit platinum, and the cover of Rolling Stone magazine in 2011 declared Dr Yunupingu 'Australia's most important voice'. His angelic voice connected with listeners worldwide, as I said, including phenomenally good musicians in their own right, such as Elton John and Sting. He got to perform for world leaders, singing in the Yolgnu Matha languages of north-east Arnhem Land. He won a swathe of ARIA and Deadly awards. In 2009, he was named Northern Territory Australian of the Year. He joined a select group of musicians who have performed for the Queen, the Pope and President Obama. Mark Grose, the managing director of his record company, Skinnyfish Music, said he finally remembered the moment he told Dr Yunupingu that he had been asked to play for Barack Obama. Dr Yunupingu responded, 'Who?' That of itself says a lot, but we need to understand that his life was more than just the sum of its parts.
His life will forever have an imprint upon us because not only his music but his life story and because the way that he, as a Yolngu man, was treated—or mistreated—by the health system. A story by Vicki Kerrigan of ABC Radio Darwin last year, headed, 'Dr Yunupingu mistreated in Darwin Hospital for 8 hours with internal bleeding, management says,' relates the way in which Dr Yunupingu was treated—or, as I say, mistreated—by the professionals at Darwin Hospital:
Mr Grose said Yunupingu had been taken to emergency via an ambulance about 9:00pm on Easter Sunday.
He had been accompanied by Mr Grose as well as his private nurse, Michelle Dowden, and the pair left the singer with the expectation he would be urgently undergoing a "simple surgery" to rectify the bleeding.
"Our assumption was that he would have a very minor operation to stop internal bleeding, and we went home confident in the knowledge that everything was under control, and we would go back and see him the next day," Mr Grose said.
Mr Grose has made a formal complaint to the chief executive of the NT Department of Health alleging Yunupingu was then, for some unknown reason, left in the rapid assessment unit for eight hours without an attempt to stop the bleeding.
"He vomited blood again [at 8:00am], which means for hours his condition was essentially deteriorating, and from my perspective, bleeding to death," Mr Grose said.
Instead of being operated on, the assumption that Mark Grose has of that occasion is that he was deemed to be an alcoholic, which he wasn't.
That says a lot about the nature of the health care that many Aboriginal people around this country experience. One of the issues that confront those of us in positions of leadership and in positions to influence policy is the inherent racism that still exists, and the way in which many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience the services they should have, as other Australians have, without being discriminated against because of who they are or the colour of their skin. In this case, it's alleged, assumptions were made about Dr Yunupingu that are, clearly, wrong. The care assumptions were made based upon his race. This was categorically rejected, and you might expect it to be, by Professor Dinesh Arya, Executive Director of Medical Services at Top End Health Service.
He recovered from that, ultimately, but it should never have happened. And others have spoken about the fact that he'd had hep B as a young bloke and, effectively, had died because of liver and renal failure. I am told he decided that the end had come and he didn't want to undertake any more treatment. Later I will speak about another person. Dr Yunupingu is the example for many who have entirely preventable diseases that are the result of who they are and where they live. They die far too early not because of their own action but because of the environment in which they live and the services available to them.
Renal disease is growing at an exponential rate across Australia, particularly in remote Australia, and unless we change the way we deal with renal failure and kidney disease incidents like this that we are discussing tonight will ever increase. So when we contemplate Dr Yunupingu's contribution to the world of music, it was extraordinary. It could have been a lot more had he lived longer. And he should have. We can take from that this lesson: we have it within us the capacity to do things to change the way in which people are dealt with in their communities across regional and remote Australia.
I know Galiwinku well; I know the Gumatj clan very well. I know his relations, his family. Many of them have suffered from the same renal disease. We have to do it a lot better. I was heartened to hear the Leader of the Opposition, yesterday, support the push for an MBS item number for remote renal dialysis. This is very important. Unless we understand the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, wherever they live, to have access to first-class services and to give them the treatment they require—let alone addressing the prevention side—we will have more Australians dying prematurely.
We have a lot more to do in this space. We as politicians, as parliamentarians, as members of this great society of ours, as leaders, have it within us to make a difference. And we should. He certainly did, and he had an impact upon all of us. May he rest in peace.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:54): I join my parliamentary colleagues in paying tribute to Dr G Yunupingu. As we have heard, he passed away late last month in Royal Darwin Hospital at the young age of 46. I didn't know Dr G personally, but I knew of him and I knew of his music. Dr G was an extraordinary Australian. Originating from the remote Galiwinku community, on Elcho Island off the coast of Arnhem Land, and as the member for Lingiari said, blind from birth, Dr G Yunupingu went on to become one of Australia's most celebrated musicians. Few musicians of this country ever get to perform in front of the audiences that Dr G was invited to perform before. It's an honour that few can claim and one that speaks about the importance of his music and the high regard in which he was held not only in this country but across the world.
Dr G's music had a uniqueness that resonated across the world and transcended cultural and national boundaries. His music had meaning. It touched those who listened to it, even though in many cases they probably couldn't understand the language. You can feel the music within you when you listen to music well performed. The former member of this House and Midnight Oil lead singer Peter Garrett described Dr G Yunupingu as a truly great musician. I know Peter knew him personally, and for him to say that is testimony to the calibre of the person we are talking about.
I note that it's extraordinary how many Indigenous Australians have displayed outstanding talents, particularly in the arts, in music and in sports. They have done that despite their disadvantage and the many barriers they continue to face. Their achievements are a real credit to them. Only very few people ever rise to national or international fame. To do so when the odds are stacked against you makes the achievement so much more unique. Can I say, to all of those people who have done that in the face of adversity, that their achievements show just how effective the arts, music and sport can be in bringing people of different backgrounds together and in doing so overcoming cultural prejudice. I have seen time and time again where people who might otherwise be considered to have a particular bias towards one cultural group or another totally lose that when they begin to support and admire a person that has achieved great things and represents their whole community or their country. In fact it was Nelson Mandela who said that he could bring his country together through sports.
What made Dr G Yunupingu's music so powerful and appealing was that he maintained his own heritage right throughout it. And he was able to bridge the cultural divide of the very different communities he was performing to. Yet, like so many of his own people, Dr G Yunupingu lived with the daily social disadvantage that Indigenous Australians have endured for years and which Australian governments of all persuasions have tried but unsuccessfully been able to overcome. What is extraordinary about Dr G Yunupingu is that he remained with his people and in his lands until the end. He could have chosen a different life. He could have moved away to where he might have had more support in terms of his health needs, and he didn't. He stayed amongst his people because that's where he felt he belonged.
The very disadvantage that he endured to reach great heights was the disadvantage that ultimately cost him his life. Perhaps, and I don't want to dwell on this because my comments are about him, if there is some good to come from his passing it is that his passing will bring a renewed commitment to and focus on overcoming the health and social disadvantage of the Indigenous people, particularly those who live in the remote parts of Australia. Dr G Yunupingu's life has passed but his music, and through his music his presence, will endure with us for years to come. His life will inspire others, as I am sure it already has, and he has made his people and the Australian people proud. To Dr G Yunupingu's family, to his friends and to his people, I extend my deep condolences.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (16:59): I rise with my colleagues to pay my respects to Dr G Yunupingu in this very important condolence motion in this chamber. Before I do that, can I recognise country, and also the country of Dr G Yunupingu. The member for Lingiari has painted a picture of Galiwinku and the Gumatj clan, from which Dr G Yunupingu came. Just prior to having this opportunity to pay my respects I had a meeting with Amnesty International, and they asked me to pass on their regards. In fact, one of the young men in that delegation was Dylan Voller, and he particularly wanted me to mention that at the beginning of this discussion.
I had the pleasure, as many of you did, of meeting Dr G Yunupingu and of seeing his performances live. The last time that that took place was in 2015 in Canada, of all places, in Vancouver. I was at an international Indigenous peoples conference on housing. The person that organised that was a Canadian First Nations man called Andrew Lee. Andrew had spent some time in Australia and had heard, I think on radio or he had a tape, of Dr G Yunupingu's work, and he made it his life mission to make sure that Dr G sang, along with his band, at that event in Canada. There were about 500 or 600 Indigenous peoples from all over the world. That is where I actually met Dr G Yunupingu and his family. He was a very quiet man, a very humble man, and was steeped deeply in his Yolngu culture, but when he sang you could hear a pin drop in the room. No-one in that room knew who he was, except the Australian delegation, I think, but it was just the most magical evening. I think many people have spoken of the quality of his music and of his voice. It was from another world. Whether you were religious or not, you could picture angels when he sang, because it was very much the voice of angels. He captivated the audience that night with his voice and his stories. He captivated it not just with the quality of his voice and his music but with the fact that he communicated so beautifully with all of us—no matter who we were or who we are—in his language. That was just the magic of that music: you could just listen and the sound seeped into you. He brought a first-Australian language to mainstream Australia. Of course, as others have said, it wasn't just to mainstream Australia: he sang for the world.
This was a man who was probably one of the most remarkable musicians this country has ever seen and will ever see, and yet he died at the age of 46 from a largely preventable disease. That is the irony of why this condolence motion is so important. It seemed remarkable, didn't it? He could sing for presidents, for queens, for leaders of country and yet meet with an end that is not an unusual end. That is the point of this story, that the death of a young Aboriginal man from end-stage renal failure is not an unusual story. It brought to me a very personal story of one of my dearest friends—exactly the same story. His name was Michael Riley of the Wiradjuri people. He was recognised worldwide as one of the most creative and best photographers in the world. Yet despite the fact that he lived in Glebe, despite the fact that he lived two or three kilometres from the hospital in Camperdown, he met with the same fate. In fact, Lynette Riley and I sat with Michael in the intensive care ward until the early hours of the morning, when he passed away. Dr Yunupingu of course was born blind and had to deal with liver and kidney complications for years. As the member for Lingiari said, in the end he practised the greatest act of self-determination, by making a decision that he'd had enough.
It leaves us with the challenge of how this can happen in a first-world nation. We have spoken about this, I know, and everyone is well intentioned, but—political leaders, activists, whoever we are—we have to face up to this living and painful truth and the painful reality. The health gap between first nations peoples and non-Indigenous Australians is not closing. It is not closing. The warnings of the tsunami coming down the track, which we heard up in Arnhem Land on the weekend and we have heard in the press this week, of Aboriginal people and kidney disease are a reality. In fact, I don't think it's a tsunami coming down the track; I think it's a tsunami that we are swirling around in and is pulling us out into the ocean right now.
We know that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has found that about 40 per cent of diseases in Indigenous Australians are preventable. As I said, the member for Lingiari and many of us were up in Gama on the weekend, and we heard from Dr Yunupingu's specialist, Dr Paul Lawton, who spoke of the challenge that many Indigenous Australians with kidney disease face—that is, the need to travel many hundreds of kilometres for treatment, away from community, away from family, away from culture and away from everything that sustains you. And this is not just a story in the NT; it is a story right across this country. People living in Bourke, people living in many more regional and remote communities, have to travel to places like Alice Springs, like Darwin, like Dubbo, like Tamworth and like, I am sure, many other places in Queensland and South Australia, often with a broken heart, because to leave culture, to leave family, to leave kinship structures, to leave ceremonies is to leave part of you behind. With Dr G Yunupingu's death and his story may we all reflect on and remember the work that we here in this parliament still have to do to close that gap.
As I said, when you are involved with the Aboriginal community, as we all are, you go to lots of funerals. In many ways, it is just incredible. People say, 'The only time I ever see you anymore is at funerals.' I think this is a reality that we have to face up to. I have seen school children and young people ashamed of their Aboriginality and be made to feel ashamed of their Aboriginality because of what has been put forward in the media, but because of people like Dr G Yunupingu young people are proud of culture, proud of story and proud of history and see themselves as a future. They aspire to participate, to achieve and to contribute, and that is because of the inspiration of people like Dr G Yunupingu.
Can I just finish up by saying that whilst at Gama last week, during the opening ceremony, there was the most emotional and remarkable tribute by the Yunupingu family and the Gumatj clan to Dr G. It was just a privilege to be there and be part of it. At the end of it, part of what happened was that we all stood with each other and held each other's hands and held them up while a song was being sung. Of course, the wailing of the women that were close to him put into all of our hearts that wail and that sadness. We have seen the passing of a remarkable young man who should not have died. It is within our grasp to do something about that. For heaven's sake, let's do something about it.
Lester, Mr Kunmanara, OAM
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (17:10): I thank and acknowledge the member for Barton for her contribution just then. She and I were together at Garma, along with our leader, Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy. It was a magnificent opportunity for us to commemorate with his family and so many others the life of a remarkable man—someone whom I have met on a number of occasions.
Today, I again want to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of this country and speak about a Yankunytjatjara man whom I knew very well—Yami Lester. His family have allowed us to use his name. I went to his funeral yesterday—a state funeral. I want to thank South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill, who was at the funeral, as well as Kyam Maher, one of his ministers. I also want to acknowledge the presence at that funeral of Minister Scullion and my good friend Senator Dodson, who was also a mate of Yami's.
Yami's story is an important story for all of us. He was born at Walkinytjanu Creek, which we visited yesterday, at Wallatina. It is about 470 kilometres south of Alice. Yami, as you may know—many of you might know part of his story, if not all of it—was born in that country to Yankunytjatjara parents. At the age of 12 he experienced what people in that region experienced, and that was the impact of atomic bomb tests at Emu Field. He refers later to the rolling black mist that came across the camp. He grew up as a stockman; he wanted to be a stockman. But these tests had taken place and he was ultimately blinded by them—first one eye and then the other. His life as a stockman, living on his country, was forever finished in terms of that type of work. Of course, the official secrecy act meant that none of us knew about any of this. Later, people said, 'While these things did happen, there was no impact on Aboriginal Australians.' What nonsense that was. Yami became a victim of that testing. He lost his sight, as I said. He was taken to Adelaide for surgery. He could not speak English. He stayed in Adelaide. Ultimately, he was befriended by the church community, and it is there that we learn about this great story. He worked. He became a broomologist. You might wonder what that is. Well, he was working for the Institute for the Blind in North Adelaide making brooms. I think he spent a number of years working in that place. Through the church, he met his first love, Lucy. As a kid—and we heard this story—he was riding his stock horse across the flat to chase this truck, with this young woman sitting in the back of it. That young woman was Lucy, who a blind man later met. They married in 1966 and had three children. They are three wonderful young people: Leroy, Rose and Karina. Their life moved on.
Yami became a very well-educated man. He moved to Alice Springs to work in the community development field for the Uniting Church, with the great Australian Jim Downing, at the Institute for Aboriginal Development. I met him there in 1978 or 1979. I worked with him and we became mates. He was a funny bugger with a self-deprecating humour, making jokes of his blindness. He'd say, 'I'm going to come around and see you' or 'I'll be around to watch TV.' Just magnificent.
In 1960 while he was in Adelaide, the coach of the Norwood footy club, the Redlegs, the pride of the parade in the SANFL, happened to be football's 'hot gospeller', Alan Killigrew. Alan was given that name for his noted team addresses. Alan, a victim of tuberculosis, which affected his spine, became friends with Yami and organised for him to become a member of the Melbourne footy club. Yesterday at the state funeral on the desert flat in the middle of South Australia, with all of these people adorned in a Melbourne footy club scarf—I had to do it—my Geelong heritage shook, but this was for Yami.
But he did so much. His life ballooned. He became a great advocate for Aboriginal Australians. He was a driver behind the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act. He was someone who was committed to Aboriginal people, despite his blindness. He had such enormous vision. That vision became shared by so many. He was the cause, in the end, of the Maralinga royal commission. He was the person who advocated in London. Imagine a blind man in London to advance the cause of his people. He became involved in many Aboriginal organisations in and around Alice Springs. He became a driver behind the development of the Nganampa Health Council in South Australia. This was a man who knew no boundaries, despite those limitations which affected him as a result of the stupidity of the country within which he was born, who did not recognise at that point his rights as a traditional Australian. Nevertheless, he fought them. He fought for those rights and he won rights. When I hear people sort of beguiling us with, 'You can't give blackfellas rights,' I think, 'What nonsense.' They are our First Australians. They deserve the recognition we have been so profoundly bad at giving them.
Yami fought with a smile. He made friends with those who might otherwise be his enemies and, by doing that, was able to do a great deal more than others could. He was someone who impacted mightily upon the lives of the Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Ngaanyatjarra people of northern South Australia—communities that I lived in and out of for some years. I am forever grateful for knowing Yami. I was reminded yesterday by a person he came to live with in later life, Bronya Dineen, after he separated from Lucy, how fondly he remembered the pork roasts at our joint—because that is what we used to do. He didn't mind a drink. Many times my office phone would ring, and a voice would say, 'Yami here, I'm ringing to ask you something.' It could be for anything. It could be for a bet on the Melbourne Cup or matters of great importance requiring government action. Sometimes it was just to have a yarn. He was someone for whom I had the greatest respect and admiration. His family are wonderful people.
Yesterday's state funeral in northern South Australia was the first conducted in the Pitjantjatjara language, the Yankunytjatjara language, as a celebration of his life. Paul Kelly was at the funeral to share a song with us, 'Maralinga'. It was uplifting. You could say so much about Yami, but to see the people he brought to his own country—born in that country, died in that country—and what did he die of? End stage renal failure. He had made the choice not to go and live in Alice Springs for renal dialysis, and, ultimately, it took him.
We can do so much more in this place. People think I'm mad, I'm sure, because I don't shut up about this stuff. For as long as I have got a breath to give, I won't shut up. These Australians demand of us the best, and we must do the best for them and with them and understand the priorities that they set are ones we should follow. Vale Yami. Yah! Good one.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (17:20): I really appreciated and enjoyed listening to the words of the honourable member for Lingiari. I did not know Mr Lester, but I certainly knew of him. It is with great sadness and respect that I rise in this place today, on International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, on what is first-nations people's land and always will be first-nations people's land. In doing so, I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land upon which we stand, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, and I would like to pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I would also like to acknowledge the Yankunytjatjara people of Mr Lester's homeland and pay respects to their leaders past, present and emerging.
Mr Lester was born in the early 1940s at Walatina Creek, an outstation on Granite Downs Station in far north South Australia. He lived a life of vital and committed activism and achievement, despite the hardships that he endured—another outstanding role model of first-nation people's tenacity and resilience. Mr Lester stood up and fought against the atrocity that was the British nuclear testing on the Anangu people's land. Between 1952 and 1963, the British government, with the agreement and support of the Australian government, carried out nuclear tests at three sites in Australia: the Monte Bello Islands off the Western Australian coast, and Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia.
Britain wanted attainment of nuclear power and Australia was to be the dumping ground to help the British achieve their political goal. More than six decades later, the decisions of the then Menzies government still cast a horrible shadow over this nation. These decisions were made by a government with a political agenda for national security, and that tapped into the Cold War fearmongering. Menzies' decision forever changed the lives of thousands of people, and they serve as a timely reminder in this place that political agenda must never be placed above the lives of the Australian and first-nation people.
What was referred to by the Anangu people as 'puyu', meaning 'black mist', was a deadly cloud—as deadly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a result of the black mist, Mr Lester lost his eyesight at a very young age. First-nation people, as well as Australian soldiers and civilians, were all exposed to radiation as a result of this political decision. Illnesses reported included cancer, blood disease, eye problems, skin rashes, blindness, and vomiting, which are all symptoms of radioactive poisoning. The Monte Bello Islands, Emu Field and Maralinga areas were all chosen due to their remoteness and being uninhabited. How incredibly wrong and ignorant that ideology was; there was no consideration for the first-nation people living on the land.
The disgraceful treatment by both the British and Australian governments occurred long before the failure of these governments to appropriately and adequately monitor and manage the safety controls. The abhorrent and irreparable damage started when the government forcibly removed the Anangu people in Maralinga from their traditional lands in the lead-up to the testing. The forced relocations destroyed the traditional, cultural and spiritual lifestyle of these Aboriginal families. The damage was radiological, psychosocial, cultural and spiritual. This change was profoundly negative, and, to this day, much of the work of lifting the living conditions for first-nation people results from the loss of traditional independence, dating from the 1950s. The British and Australian governments attempted to clean the site three times—in 1967, in 2000 and again in 2009.
Mr Lester was instrumental in the many negotiations relating to Aboriginal land claims. He served as an interpreter and cultural adviser between the Anangu people and state, territory and federal governments during the arduous legal battles to win the inalienable freehold titles for traditional owners. Through Mr Lester's hard work and campaigning efforts, and 54 years after the Anangu people were forcibly removed, they were finally allowed to return home—a home that was, in fact, an atomic test site. In reality, only some areas were declared to be safe.
This is where governments continue their ignorance, which stems back to the forced removals of the Aboriginal people from their land. What kind of a home is a nuclear test site? Seven hundred trials of air and land missile strikes were tested over the decade, releasing over 100 Ks of radioactive and toxic elements on the Anangu land. What could possibly be left? For Indigenous people, the land is Mother Earth. It is sacred to their culture. After 100 Ks of radioactive and toxic elements have been on and in the land, there aren't many trees left, there is no grass and there certainly aren't any animals. We can give compensation, but nothing will replace the land and the cultural and spiritual connections. It will never be the same home again. But the fight was not yet over. Mr Lester was pivotal in continuing the fight to ensure the gold cards were provided to cover the health costs of the surviving participants of the British nuclear test program. In May this year, I was privileged to speak to the bill which allowed for gold card coverage to occur. But, as Mr Lester said, we were 60 years too late.
Mr Lester's fight and strong advocacy work lives on in his daughters, Rose and Karina. They carry on the fight for compensation for the destruction and contamination of Aboriginal lands and the dispossession of the Anangu people. Karina and Rose are both continuing their father's legacy by staunchly advocating against South Australia's recent proposals for nuclear-waste dumps. I pass on my deepest sympathy and condolences to Mr Lester's family.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (17:27): It's with great admiration and respect that I speak of the life and achievements of Yami Lester, who passed away on 21 July. Can I thank my two colleagues who have just spoken ahead of me, Mr Snowdon and Ms O'Toole, in respect to him. In particular, I thank the member for Lingiari for providing his personal insight into Yami Lester. It just confirms what I'd already read and heard about him up until I put together my own thoughts about what I would say today.
A Yankunytjatjara man born at the Walkinytjanu Creek outstation in northern South Australia in 1941, Yami Lester survived the British nuclear tests at Emu Field in 1953 to become a leader among his people. I make that statement very clear for several reasons. I've had a considerable number of discussions with people who participated in the tests at Emu Field in the fifties and afterwards. It's a matter that I have raised in this parliament on several occasions and which I've spoken about, including only a few weeks ago. Indeed, only three weeks ago I spoke to a group of people who are trying to put together a memorial in recognition of what took place at Maralinga in the fifties.
The passing of Yami Lester is meaningful in so many ways to me as a person. While other members of the camp died horrible deaths at the time because of the fallout of the black mist, as it's been referred to, Yami Lester suffered permanent blindness when he was just 11 years old. Yet, instead of feeling self-pity about what had happened to him as a child, he went on to try and redress much of the injustice that took place. In my own speeches made in this place, I've referred to, mainly, our Defence veterans and government personnel who were in the area at the time and the treatment that they received afterwards from our governments and, indeed, from the English and Canadian governments, because there were members on duty from those two countries as well at the time.
I haven't said too much about the Indigenous people. The reality is that there were Indigenous people in the lands where the tests took place. I have heard unproven accounts of some of them being put on trucks and taken away. But the reality is that, even for them, the risks were barely minimised because, as with what happened in one particular case, as soon as the bomb was detonated and the plume went up into the air, the wind changed and went in the very direction of where people thought they might be safe. The Indigenous people of that land were some of the worst affected by those tests. In the 1950s it was very much the case that, if you were an Indigenous person, you didn't matter much.
It was in the 1950s and 1960s that we saw a number of Indigenous people, including Yami Lester, begin to take a stand and fight for their rights. We saw huge changes in the years that followed in the late 1950s and early 1960s, culminating in the 1967 referendum. Yami Lester was one of the people who were part of that whole movement. Indeed, it was largely because of his efforts that the 1984-85 McClelland royal commission into the Maralinga tests ever took place. From that commission, there was some compensation provided. Again, my understanding is there were some 1,800 Indigenous people in the area at the time, but I suspect that even those figures would be very vague. It would be difficult for anyone to say with any accuracy just how many people were there. Indeed, it would be very difficult for anyone to say with any accuracy how many of them died as a result of the tests. But Yami was determined to make a difference and help his people—and he did that.
Having done that, he didn't stop there and he didn't ever allow his blindness to stop him from trying to advance the cause and speak up for Indigenous people. He joined the Aborigines Advancement League as a young man. He did welfare work in Alice Springs for the United Mission. He worked with the Institute for Aboriginal Development. He served as a cultural adviser and interpreter for the Anangu people. He was a key figure with the Pitjantjatjara land council, which helped establish the handover of free title to the Anangu people. He helped the Mimili people take control of their own business affairs, and he campaigned for the restoration of the shockingly scarred Maralinga land. I can well remember the handing over of the Pitjantjatjara lands. It must have been around the 1970s. These were not easy issues to be dealing with at the time. But he fought, and ultimately changes were made.
He went on to be an anti-nuclear activist and Indigenous rights advocate and was awarded an Order of Australia medal for his services to Indigenous affairs. There would be few people who would be more worthy of that medal than Yami. Again, it was good to hear the member for Lingiari was able to attend the funeral that was held only yesterday in the APY Lands in South Australia's far north. Fittingly, I understand there were 500 people there. To get 500 people in the middle of nowhere to attend a funeral says much about a person. Those 500 people went there and farewelled him. As the member for Lingiari quite rightly pointed out, he leaves three children. And so to Yami I say: thank you for what you did not just for your people but for us as a nation and in particular as a South Australian for the Indigenous people in South Australia. It is because of people like you that the world often changes. To Yami's family, friends, colleagues and people I not only pay my deep respects but extend my sincere condolences.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (17:34): My contribution is a brief one. I think there has been much said by the previous three speakers that really does paint a fabulously accurate, warm, enduring and respectful picture of Mr Lester OAM of the Yankunytjatjara people of South Australia. Once again, I recognise country and pay respect to the traditional owners of this land on which Parliament House is built.
I knew Mr Lester—not well, but I came to know him through the wonderful work he did in the education arena, which I was also working in. He was a gracious man with a melodious voice. He was incredibly intelligent, and incredibly patient and resilient, as everyone has pointed out. He was not only an effective activist; he was a very, very real community and family person. He never forgot that his place was with the community, and his Aboriginality was who he was.
His story is all too familiar to Indigenous Australians. He did suffer a great injustice, along with his people, during the terrible times of those tests—those tests that were not even known to be going on by the broader Australian community. It was an arrangement between the British and Australian governments, with no consideration or care for the first peoples, the traditional peoples, of those countries. In fact, white people were not known to many of those people. So not only the shock of those clouds was enormous but the shock of the people in that country was enormous. His family and his community did suffer a great injustice. He suffered in many ways and he used his suffering, turning it into—with inspiration—the advocacy that he used to fight and to do the amazing things he did with his life.
He didn't fight for justice for only Aboriginal people; he fought for justice for all Australians. And that was very much the work he did that led to the McClelland royal commission. That would not have happened without the advocacy of Yami Lester, and we as a country would have been denied the truth of what actually took place out there in those desert lands in South Australia. He has spoken about it, and we've heard about the black mist that he saw coming over, not just over him—it blew in from the south—but over his family, over his family's camp and over many other families.
As our previous speaker just said, who knows how many people died as a result of that? We know about the illness. We know about the subsequent blindness, the suffering, the vomiting, the diarrhoea, but we don't know exactly how many people were out there, and we'll never know. We'll never know the true cost of those terrible, terrible tests, and, of course, the efforts to clean up that land. People have spoken about the important connection of Aboriginal people with country, and that probably is the greatest injustice of all: destroying that country—but, of course, not destroying the songlines and not destroying the spirit of that country.
Yami Lester carried himself with grace and dignity, and with that grace and dignity, that intelligence, that persistence, he was able to achieve an enormous amount of things in his life. He carried himself with patience and dedication when he had every reason to give up because of his disability. But that disability became a strength that he proved to everyone.
We have heard of the many positions that he held. As I said, I came into contact with Mr Lester through my work in the education space and through his work as well. He took a passionate interest and advanced the cause of education for Aboriginal children. He knew full well that education was and is crucial to breaking the shackles of oppression. We all know that. I have heard many of our members in this place speak about that. He also advanced the cause of Aboriginal land rights within the South Australian government.
He leaves behind, as we have heard, three children, Rosemary Leroy and Karina. Those children are carrying on the amazing legacy of their father, and what a legacy it is. He leaves behind a legacy we should all work to continue to advance: of justice and equality, of no rancour and no meanness. That is the fundamental aspect of Yami's personality that made him the man he was: a remarkable Australian, a remarkable South Australian, a remarkable Yankunytjatjara man. If we all had just a small ounce of his grace, dignity and patience we would be greater people.
On the day of his death, as the member for Lingiari said, he had a wonderful sense of humour. I think it was on the ABC that there was a clip of an interview with Mr Lester. The interviewer said, prophetically, 'How would you like to be remembered?' He looked at the camera and laughed. He said, 'I want to be remembered as a good stockman.' That was Yami Lester.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the member for Barton. I thank all members who made a contribution to those two statements on indulgence. They were heartfelt. It does give you an insight into the contribution that both those gentlemen made to the Australian landscape and to the communities they represented. Are there further statements on indulgence for the death of Mr Lester OAM? There being none, I thank honourable members for their contributions.
F ederation Chamber adjourned at 17:42 .