The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Deputy Prime Minister
Qualifications of Members
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (10:01): Last Thursday afternoon the New Zealand High Commission contacted me to advise that, on the basis of preliminary advice from their Department of Internal Affairs, which had received inquiries from the New Zealand Labour Party, they considered that I may be a citizen by descent of New Zealand. Needless to say, I was shocked to receive this information. I've always been an Australian citizen, born in Tamworth, just as my mother and my grandmother were born there 100 years earlier. Neither I nor my parents have ever had any reason to believe that I may be a citizen of any other country. I was born in Australia in 1967 to an Australian mother, and I think I am fifth generation. My father was born in New Zealand and came to Australia in 1947 as a British subject. In fact, we were all British subjects at that time. The concept of New Zealand and Australian citizenship was not created until 1948. Neither my parents nor I have ever applied to register me as a New Zealand citizen. The New Zealand government has no register recognising me as a New Zealand citizen.
The government has taken legal advice from the Solicitor-General. On the basis of the Solicitor-General's advice, the government is of the firm view that I would not be found to be disqualified by the operation of section 44(i) of the Constitution from serving as the member for New England. However, to provide clarification to this very important area of the law for this and future parliaments, I have asked the government to refer the matter, in accordance with section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. Given the strength of the legal advice the government has received, the Prime Minister has asked that I remain Deputy Prime Minister and continue my ministerial duties.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:03): I present the 13th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with 42 petitions and eight ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
PETITIONS
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:03): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Defence Force Retirement and Death Scheme
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. This petition of James Glen Hislop draws the attention of the House injustices in the Defence Force Retirement and Death (DFRDB) Scheme, in that:
1. During the period from 1991 to 2014, the benefits of all DFRDB recipients were reduced permanently, by almost one third, through the use of the Consumer Price Index in the calculation of automatic cost of living adjustments.
2. The governing legislation, the DFRDB Act 1973, embodies a bogus indexation arrangement which denies the widows and dependent offspring of deceased members, their full benefits.
3. That legislation also embodies a commutation arrangement, based on outdated life expectancy tables, where members who opted to take an advance on their retirement pay entitlement are required to repay that advance many times over due to the effects of inflation and a significant increase in life expectancy.
I ask the House to:
1. Restore all DFRDB benefits so they are relevant to the floor rate of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings.
2. Repeal section 98B (5) of the DFRDB Act in its entirety.
3. Amend section 24 of the DFRDB Act so that when the commutation lump sum advanced has been recovered in full by the Commonwealth, retirement pay is restored to its full rate.
I ask the House to:
1. Restore all DFRDB benefits so they are relevant to the floor rate of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings.
2. Repeal section 98B (5) of the DFRDB Act in its entirety.
3. Amend section 24 of the DFRDB Act so that when the commutation lump sum advanced has been recovered in full by the Commonwealth, retirement pay is restored to its full rate.
from 2,215 citizens
Falun Gong
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ASSEMBLED IN PARLIAMENT This petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that Falun Gong is a peaceful meditation practice based on the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion and Tolerance. Falun Gong practitioners in China have been subjected to the most brutal and relentless persecution by the Chinese Communist regime since July 1999, causing thousands to lose their olives from illegal detention and systematic torture. Such conduct stands in blatant violation of all international human rights charters that the Chinese government has itself ratified. According to investigative reports published by human rights lawyer David Matas and former Canadian Secretary of State for the Asia Pacific; David Kilgour, tens of thousands of imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners have been subjected to forced organ harvesting for China's transplant market and lost their Lives (www.organharvestinvestigation.net).
We therefore ask the House to request the prime Minister and the Foreign Minister for openly and forthrightly call for an immediate end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.
from 9,858 citizens
Foreign Aid
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES This petition of concerned citizens of Indi draws to the attention of the House: The need for the Australian government to commit fully to its foreign aid responsibilities.
We therefore ask the House to: Restore the funding to foreign aid which has been severely cut in recent years. In so doing, Australia must commit again to the United Nations aid target for developed nations of giving 0.7 percent of Gross National Income to foreign aid, this to be achieved within the next decade.
from 27 citizens
Adani Coalmine
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our grave concerns that nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' money from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund (NAIF) may be provided to Adani to help fund the construction of a railway line to transport coal more than 300 kilometres from the Galilee Basin to the Adani-owned coal port at Abbot Point.
We do not support taxpayers' funds being used to prop up the coal mining operations of this company, and therefore ask the House to refuse to provide these funds to the Adani company.
from 711 citizens
Adani Coalmine
-In December 2016, the government's Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility granted 'conditional approval' for a one billion dollar loan to Adani to build a rail line between its proposed Carmichael coalmine and the Abbott Point shipping terminal in Queensland;
- the consequent expansion of the Abbott Point shipping terminal will require dredging of previously undisturbed seabed withing the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area resulting in destruction of food source for dugongs, disturbance of turtle nesting grounds and risk pollution of wetlands which are home to threatened bird species;
- Adani plans to mine 2.3 billion tonnes of coal over the mine's 60 years of operation. Burning this coal would result in the emission of 4.6 billion tonnes of CO2 which would exacerbate climate change and contribute to the death of the Great Barrier Reef itself; and
- during the election, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that there would be no public funding for Adani's mine.
We therefore ask the House to hold the Prime Minister to his promise to refuse Adani's requests for publicly-funded subsidies; and call for public money to be spent on saving the Great Barrier Reef rather than on projects which may destroy it.
from 639 citizens
Immigration Detention
This petition from Rural Australians for Refugees and Certain Citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House, the deplorable treatment of refugees seeking asylum in Australia.
1. Immediately close onshore and offshore detention centres, with people seeking asylum at offshore detention centres brought to the mainland where all asylum claims will be heard in a timely manner and with justice and compassion.
2. Amend the Migration Act to allow asylum seekers to apply for refugee protection regardless of their mode of arrival.
3. Permanently resettle in Australia people who have sought asylum in Australia, who arrived by boat without authorization, and are found to be refugees under the UN Refugee Convention.
4. Permit the right to apply for family reunion once people are recognised as refugees, with family reunions achieved in a timely manner.
5. Increase intake of refugees on the humanitarian visa to 50,000 per year.
6. Exercise a duty of care to ensure that people seeking asylum are not pressured to sign documents to return to their home countries against their will when they have a genuine fear of persecution and death.
from 3,877 citizens
Asylum Seekers: Manus Island
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES This petition of citizens of Australia and other countries draws to the attention of the House the distressing situation of the 850 refugees and asylum seekers imprisoned on Manus Island. These men, in Australia's care, have been given the impossible choice of returning to the country they fled or facing an uncertain, dangerous future in Cambodia or Papua New Guinea. Although at a future time some may be resettled in the US, detainees say that many have not submitted claims for refugee status because of the current resettlement options. This inhuman treatment of innocent people must stop.
We therefore ask the House: to allow the 850 asylum seekers and refugees detained on Manus Island to come to Australia for their processing to be completed in a proper way, and allow those granted refugee status to settle in Australia.
from 24 citizens
Bass Strait
This petition draws the attention of the House, to a motion, carried without amendment, at the 44th Federal Council of the Liberal Party. "That this Federal Council believes that the Federal Coalition policy should:
- Recognise that shipping across Bass Strait is Tasmania's link to the National Highway system;
- Have in the context of national economic and community access objectives, an obligation to provide a more equitable transport situation for Tasmania by increasing financial assistance for sea passenger travel across Bass Strait;
- Provide such assistance to Tasmania as an addition to its existing National Highway funding arrangements as it is consistent with the economic and community benefits that this program aims to deliver;
-Ensure that the quantum of funding be the equivalent amortized capital cost (over 20 years) and maintenance cost spent per kilometre on present National Highways by the Commonwealth for the total distance of Bass Strait (measured) Devonport to Melbourne; and
- Ensure that the principal beneficiaries of such funding should be travelers across Bass Strait, and that there should be flexibility in how such funds are deployed to benefit this target group."
In view the motions merits, I request the House call on the Treasurer to explain; -Why no meaningful highway performance criteria cover Canberra's sea passenger funding? -Why special interest needs replace equity, GST and national economic integration objectives? -Are thes ethe underlying causes of the Productivity Commission's recommendation to replace equalization with unspecified subsidies, limiting growth and eroding democracy?
from 1 citizen
Citizenship
We are in favour of the proposed changes to the Citizenship requirements. Changing the Permanent Residency required time to 4 years and adding a mandatory English level to access Citizenship. Becoming Australian is not a right but a privilege. Other country have much harder requirements and theses changes will help us keep our identities while having minimal impact on genuine applications.
We ask that the House of Representatives does work towards theses changes as soon as possible on a non-partisan way. We would like the Members of the House of Representatives to have an open and positive attitude towards theses changes.
from 22 citizens
Advertising
Children are seeing Ads and pictures of a half naked man on the bus and an Ad about syphilis and asking why is he undressed? why does he look weird? And what is syphilis? And how do you get it? As concerned parents, guardians, educators and anyone who cares for the children's well being, we don't see that is appropriate for children to be exposed to such matters openly like this and have to answer questions that are too primitive for their physical and mental development.
We therefore ask the house to ban the Advertisements referring to sexual diseases, such syphilis awareness campaign, or Ads that have any sexual connotations in public places, especially on busses or through the Television in times visible to children.
from 7 citizens
Flying Fox Colony
We live in Murrurundi NSW. We currently have a very serious flying fox problem. The bats have colonized along the pages river in the centre of town. Effecting many residential properties and their occupants, businesses, our school (they are within the school grounds), our water sources, residents water tanks and being that our town water supply comes from that river there is great concern our water supply is in danger of contamination as the bat numbers are growing. The large amounts of droppings and urine from the bats is creating an incredible stench and health risk. We are also a very large horse community of which is of major concern to owners due to Hendra virus. A public information session in regards to flying-foxes was held at the Murrurundi RSL Hall at 5pm on Thursday, 4 May 2017. There was a presentation by a flying-fox research scientist, a Local Land Service Vet, an Office of Environment and Heritage representative and an opportunity to ask questions. This meeting was not successful as any reassurance of a solution was not a very helpful or I might add respectful one for our community. There solution is to double glaze windows for a noise solution and installing air cons for the smell problems within homes and businesses. As a community we feel we are not being heard.
We therefore ask that urgent assessment be undertaken of our situation and a plan approved for the removal of the bat colony within our community.
from 3 citizens
Medicare
The cost of childcare to Middle to low income families.
We request that there be the option to have childcare costs deducted from the pre-tax salary of families earning $120,000 or less.
from 3 citizens
Falun Gong
Lorrita Liu is an Australian citizen from Hustville, NSW. Her mother and sister have been illegally detained in Xi'an City, China (sister city of Hobart) since 22 March 2017. Lorrita Liu and her mother (Yuhua Li) and sister (Chunxia Liu) all practice the spiritual meditation Falun Gong (Falun Dafa). Falun Gong is a spiritual practice based on principles of "Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance". It has been persecuted by the Chinese Communist regime since July 1999. Yuhua Li (mother) is 72 years old. Between 1999-2016, she was illegally detained in brainwashing class twice, abducted 5 times, in detention centre 4 times, sent to forced labour camp for 1 year, and illegally sentenced to 3 years. She was tortured, repeatedly beaten, shocked with electric batons, and deprived of sleep of 3 days in a row. She is now locked up in Baqiao District Brainwashing Class. Chunxia Liu (sister) is illegally detained in Xincheng District Detention Centre in Xi'an City, as of the date when this petition is submitted. The treatment of Lorrita Liu's family in China has left the whole family distraught. On 1 December 2003, the Australian Senate passed Motion No. 704 calling for the rescue of illegally detained Australian family members (Falun Gong practitioners) from Chinese labour camps, and there have been some successful rescue cases following that motion.
We request that the House do all it can to help the urgent release of Australian citizen Lorrita Liu's mother Yuhua Li and sister Chunxia Liu from illegal detention in China.
from 668 citizens
Drug Testing
Ask the house to show what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Recent measures announced in budget week indicate testing of welfare recipients for illegal drugs will begin soon.
The petitioners request the House implement testing for illegal drugs and alcohol for all members. During times where parliament is sitting in Canberra testing will be compulsory and daily and when parliament is not sitting testing will be random. Each member will be tested a minimum of twice per year outside of Canberra. The penalty for alcohol in the system will be determined by the House and anyone found to have illegal drugs in their system will be referred to the police for relevant action.
from 8 citizens
Citizenship
Existing Permanent and Temporary Residents assume no right to citizenship, however they do assume a right to apply for citizenship and be judged under something resembling the broad rules laid out to them when they first arrived in Australia. These were the rules on which they planned, and gave up, years of their lives in the pursuit of the opportunity to apply for Australian Citizenship. Whilst there are many aspects to the proposed changes, the crucial one that most represents the opposite of a 'Fair Go' is that EXISTING Permanent and Temporary residents should now need 4 years as a Permanent Resident before they have the chance to apply for citizenship. This change represents a major 'moving of the goalposts' for people that have ALREADY spent years in Australia. What rules Australia chooses to lay out for new people entering the country is Australia's decision to make, but changing the rules for people ALREADY in Australia is, in our eyes, reneging on the terms of a deal.
We ask the House to ensure any change to the Permanent Residency component of citizenship eligibility only apply to NEW ENTRANTS going forwards, NOT to people already in Australia. If this request is ignored, as a final plea, please consider the special case of Permanent Residents who, thinking they only had months left before they could apply for citizenship, gave their newborn children to Australia as citizens. These people now face years more in limbo before knowing if they'll ever join their children as Australian Citizens.
from 952 citizens
Foreign Aid
Australia has an important leadership role to play both in our region and around the world. Part of this is being proactive in our approach to ensure everyone, regardless of background, has the same opportunities we have in Australia. The fourth consecutive cut of the Official Development Assistance (ODA) of $303 million in the 2017 Budget has made this more difficult. While Australia is making cuts, others are making the necessary investments to contribute to a healthier and safer world. As an example, even though the UK faces tougher economic situations, the UK Parliament managed to pass an Act which ensures 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) is dedicated to ODA. Progressively more countries are going above this. Denmark, Turkey, Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway and the UAE have now all surpassed the 0.7% mark, while Australia falls behind at just 0.25%. Our ODA will continue to decrease and is projected to fall below 0.20% by 2021 - our lowest level in history. Australia can reach 0.7%, which would increase our ODA budget to $12 billion in 2017. This still only makes up 2.7% of total available revenue in our Federal Budget. Investing now will lessen the impact of future issues such as terrorism leading to a safer region. Poverty is a handbrake on economic development. Australian Aid saves lives, develops communities and helps people to bring themselves out of poverty.
We therefore ask for the House to introduce legislation that would ensure 0.7% of GNI is dedicated to ODA every year.
from 17 citizens
Higher Education
Requesting the Australian Government to revoke the reform of replacing higher education subsidies with loans for most Australian permanent residents and New Zealand citizens. From 1 January 2018, subsidies for Australian permanent residents and New Zealand (NZ) citizens enrolling in a Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP) will be withdrawn, making them fee paying students. This is an unfair measure considering that such individuals are Australian tax-payers paying into the subsidy scheme, but will denied access and faced with taking on enormous loans to fund their education. Students commencing studies in 2018 may graduate with burdensome debts of over $100,000 AUD where full-fee courses have tuition costs of over $35,000 AUD per year. Moreover, the studies that these students are undertaking are investments in Australia's future for which they should not be penalized for.
We therefore ask the Australian Government to continue access to subsidies for Australian permanent residents and New Zealand (NZ) citizens, and abandon this reform.
from 102 citizens
Australian Electoral Commission
Senator Xenophon is in the national media complaining about former Senators Day and Culleton having to repay their senate salaries, expenses and allowances. Both former senators signed false declarations for the AEC saying they comply with S44 of the constitution. The current Centrelink robodebt campaign to recover monies wrongly paid to welfare recipients means the government must be serious in chasing these constitution breachers for every cent the wrongly received or the robodebt campaign looks like a farce.
We the petitioners ask the House to ensure that any person found to have breached the Australian constitution must repay all monies received as salary, travel expenses, accommodation and food allowances, office allowances and expenses. We also would ask that pensions be cancelled and the police asked to investigate charges of fraud for signing false declarations to nominate for election.
from 22 citizens
Compliance Audit
In Parliament 44 Dr. Jensen the Chair of the Petitions Committee and Senator Cormann the Special Minister of State hid a petition asking for an audit of compliance of S44 of the constitution. They marked petition #1134-1604 not to be referred. It is still on the Petitions page for Parliament 44 marked as such in the list of petitions for Senator Cormann. In two other petitions about S44 of the constitution Senator Cormann replied by saying we should trust candidates to tell the truth when they nominate for election to parliament. Senators Day and Culleton show trust and truth doesn't work. Senator Cormanns other advice was to rely on a voter in an electorate to have enough money to begin High Court action in the Court of Disputed Returns should an MP be in breach of the constitution. This excludes a huge proportion of the voting populace from the judicial system just by address, let alone financial ability to run a High Court case. In Parliament 45 Mr Vasta the Chair of the Petitions Committee hid petition EN0038 after it was presented to parliament and read into Hansard, it was not to be referred. Action by Queensland Senators and Mr Wallace MP got the petition referred to the SMOS.
The petitioners ask that an audit of compliance of S44 of the Australian Constitution be conducted as soon as practicable and thought given to conducting such a compliance audit after every election.
from 7 citizens
Corruption Watchdog
This petition is necessary because of numerous reasons, including: 1. There is discontent in civil society regarding government accountability (and the subsequent social and political conflict this creates); 2. There is a perception among the public that members of parliament are overly subject to the influence of businesses, lobbyists, and NGOs; 3. Only a federal corruption watchdog has the capability to address the perceived systematic corruption which exists in politics at a federal level.
Signatories to this petition request the establishment of a national-level corruption watchdog. Specifically, this corruption watchdog should be for the purpose of investigating the financial links between Members of the Federal Parliament and businesses, NGOs, and individual persons undertaking lobbyist work for private organisations to Members of the Federal Parliament.
from 47 citizens
Assange, Mr Julian
The Australian government has an obligation to all its citizens, whether at home or overseas, to protect them from threatening action. Julian Assange has been cleared of all charges from Sweden and has committed no illegal acts. He is an Australian citizen and as such, should be awarded our protection and sanctuary.
We therefore ask the House to act on behalf of Mr Assange, to ensure his safety and security as an Australian citizen, and to prevent unlawful extradition to the United States.
from 26 citizens
Islam
Establish a law that forbid persons enforcing Sharia Law on Australian soil, and forbid persons from wearing the burqa. The safety of Australians, tourists and non-muslim refugees is paramount.
We therefore ask the House to convict and deport persons enforcing Sharia Law immediately, ban the burqa in all Australian states, and remove all books from mosques and Islam schools that promote a violent ideology.
from 46 citizens
Equality
In Australia we like to believe that we are multicultural and equal it's about time our benefits, treatments, and rights are equal.
We ask the house to no longer judge centrelink benefits, medical access / assistance, university places / grants, jobs, running of businesses on the colour of our skin, religion or heritage. Aboriginals are no longer the stolen generation, the people of australia need to be treated equal no matter of race, extra access or funding rather than be more or less for heritage it should be based on location for rural individuals regardless because no matter the colour living rural everyone is at the same disadvantages, it should be no more acceptable for certain employers to hire set races. In order for australia to be equal we all need to have access and payments the same as anyone in similar circumstances. White, black we all are facing the same struggle to find work to get education no one set of people should be offered more than another all payments, scholar ships, medical access, job guarantees should be offered due to race as instead of promoting equallity we are giving certain groups extra which promotes more animosity.
from 5 citizens
Citizenship
The Federal Government is proposing changes to the Citizenship Act 2007. 37,000 people have already signed a petition on Change.org, however we need the assistance of Parlimentarians to present the views of the public. 1. The retrospective nature of the proposed citizenship laws is unfair and unAustralian - not giving non-citizens a 'fair go'. The rules should not be changed mid-way through an individual's journey. There should be a starting date following the passing of the Bill and subsequent legislation. This has not yet occurred, yet DIBP are not processing citizenship applications for people who fulfill the CURRENT legislation. This is against the law. It is a kick in the guts to those who have planned their lives with a citizenship date in mind. 2. We are against the four year wait on permanent residency and wish for the citizenship laws from this aspect not change. Many have been in Australia for over four years, have integrated well as skilled migrants and spouses, are educated from Australian institutions, own Australian property and have Australian families. The journey to permanent residency is years in itself, an additional three years on the current 12 months on permanent residency is unfair.
We, the 37.000 signatories, request you to question the Federal Government's decision to change the Citizenship laws in such an abrupt way, without grandfathering or exemptions to those already on their journey to citizenship. We also request you to oppose and challenge the Federal Government's decision to make this law retrospective in nature.
from 5,118 citizens
Plastic Bags
Plastic bags has been embedded into our lifestyle; everyday an average Australian uses and dumps 2-3 new bags. Single day's count just multiply that by 24 million. Monthly count is scary let alone the yearly count. 3 prime issues highlighted over the years: 1. Big chunk of plastic ends up into water streams, and our beloved ocean. Few years down the line, that will be inside our sea life; we love our barra and trout. Eventually, ending up on our dining table. Do we really care for our kids, doesn't look like. 2. Big supermarkets dump the plastic into the ground, a businessmen calls it cheapest bet. But, if we believe in science that just pollutes ground, creates methane, adds to global warming. Australia will be a pile of plastic. 3. Recycling is only a single digit % of the entire plastic used due to lack of effort by companies and households. That's a fact.
Save our reef, our fishes, our nature and make a difference. We request the honorary house to realize the consequences of plastic on our land and in the water. Make a national wide organization to clean up our water-ways and a new Bin type in the drive-way just for plastic. Let's be the first nation to impose a complete plastic ban, no thin no thick no alternatives, just a complete ban.
from 43 citizens
Compliance Audit
In Parliament 44 Dr. Jensen Chair of the Petitions Committee read a petition into Hansard requesting an audit of compliance with S44 of the constitution. This was given to Senator Cormann and he for some reason marked the petition not to be answered for parliament. No reason was given for this and had that petition been acted on Mr Day would have been found to be in breach of the constitution nearly a full year before he was removed from parliament. Senator Cormann and the current SMOS Senator Ryan both believe nominees for election should be trusted to tell the truth when they tick the box indicating they comply with S44 of the constitution. This obviously doesn't work or there wouldn't have been a problem with Mr Day and Culleton. AEC are precluded by their legislation from examining compliance with S44 of the constitution and the Court of Disputed Returns is only available for voters in an electorate where it is believed there may be a breach of S44 by the candidate. After recent breaches of the constitution it is very naive to rely on a nominee telling the truth. Senator Ryan refused to answer petition EN0038 about a members compliance with S44 of the constitution instead relying on that member telling the truth when he ticked the S44 box on the nomination form.
We therefore ask the House to conduct an audit of compliance with S44 of the constitution for all members.
from 14 citizens
Cashless Debit Card
Concerns about the introduction of a cashless debit card trial in the electorate of Hinkler. This will marginalise already vulnerable people and it will do nothing to create more employment opportunities in our region. It will stifle economic growth and create an us and them town. Crime has increased in current trial areas and 49% of trial participants said it has made their lives worse.
We ask the House not to introduce the cashless debit card for Hinkler's welfare recipients.
from 330 citizens
Veterans
Due to the repeal of the INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS 1997 – REG 995.1.03, many vulnerable veterans are now set to lose many $100’s to over a $1000 a month from their Invalidity Benefits come July 1st, 2017. This legislation allowed the compensatory nature of these benefits to be acknowledged and a lower rate of tax was applied to these payments. This repeal removes that recognition and Injured Ex ADF members will now lose large sums of money that actually allows such people to survive. For vulnerable members this money means being able to pay their rent or mortgage, feed and clothe their children and have a reasonable (not extravagant) life that does not mean living fortnight to fortnight because they were injured serving their nation.
We request the relevant minister look into the taxation treatment of DFRDB and MSBS invalidity payments. Neither of these payments meet the definition of a pension in Regulation 1.06 of the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act, as required in the Tax Act. Neither the ATO or Comsuper will recognise this. Comsuper will not answer the question if either invalidity benefit they administer, is a pension as defined in Regulation 1.06 of the SISR. Comsuper is bound to comply with the SIS Act to remain a complying superannuation fund. We request the relevant minister to contact the petition author to work through this problem. If veterans payments are treated in accordance with the relevant legislation, this looming crisis will be averted.
from 2,803 citizens
Aged Care
Recent deaths involving carer negligence and allegations of one resident murdering another in the Oakden locked geriatric hospital (South Australia), in addition to other complaints of regular abuses inflicted on patients, raise legitimate public concerns of the appalling quality of aged care in an ageing society.
This petition seeks a National Royal Commission into Elder Abuse to investigate the quality of aged care in Australia and the ability of the aged care providers to meet the increasing demand for properly qualified and police vetted carers, nurses, doctors and other similar aged care professionals and service providers.
from 12 citizens
National Broadband Network
The FTTN is damaging to the education and training of Australians, to businesses, to the economy and to Australia's future. Customers are experiencing slower than ADSL speeds, and millions of Australians will never be able to access reasonable speeds. The FTTN rollout has been a continuing failure. Delivery timeframes have been extended multiple times, and it's commonly accepted that upgrading needs to begin before rollout is even completed. Taxpayers, who already pay for this infrastructure debacle, are now expected to pay a monthly tax for the privilege of being forced to use an inferior product. The failure to reach the minimum standards required to effectively participate on a global scale, reaches far beyond the present; it stunts our economic growth, inhibits the prospects for the next generation, and puts us, as a nation, on the back foot in innovation, product development, trade, education and training. It limits the sphere and location of business, and subjects Australia to a future of diminished productivity, and increasing need to import both product and labour. It inhibits future investment, and leaves little opportunity to compete globally, or service our own regional populations, in the areas of science, technology, medicine, research and more.
We ask the members of the House acknowledge that quality NBN provision is necessary for the productive future of Australia, and resolve to do all things, and take all action necessary, to facilitate the immediate cessation of the FTTN rollout, and complete the rollout in accordance with the original FTTP plan.
from 2,419 citizens
Medication Costs
In Australia, around 90% of people over 60 take at least one drug per week, with approximately 40% of the group using at least 5 different medications in a week. However, of all wealthy countries, Australia has the third highest reliance on out-of-pocket payments. This is severely disadvantaging elderly citizens who rely on the pension for their vital medication.
I therefore ask the house to increase federal funding to the aged pension to ensure that elders who rely on it can get the medication they need more easily.
from 11 citizens
Sanctions
Concerns regarding lack of censure on a foreign nations actions that effect Australian Citizens.
Serious consideration for what trade sanctions may best be put into place, by Australia, as punitive measures to encourage the United States of America to take seriously the concern of climate change and not attempt to create an international climate of denial and further damage tot he world that the rest of the planets citizens inhabit. Such a destruction of the global climate being tantamount to an act of terrorism committed against all nations not it's own. And an act of war against it's own people.
from 2 citizens
National Memorial
Request the House to consider establishment of a permanent national memorial for all the victims of terrorists both internationally & domestic
We therefore ask the house to establish a permanent national memorial for victims of terrorism
from 11 citizens
Mandatory Drug Testing
The petitioners request that the House reject the Government’s proposed trial of drug testing for welfare recipients. The suggested “random” selection of subjects by profiling people thought to be high risk will lead to discriminatory selection, while income quarantine and compulsory treatment are ineffective measures that will further marginalise the vulnerable. Rather than supporting people into employment, this will force those with substance abuse problems to disengage with the system and seek other means to support themselves. This reflects the experience of other jurisdictions, where mandatory testing has proven expensive and ineffective. Such resources would be better targeted towards supporting our overburdened treatment sector, as metropolitan and regional service providers continue to be understaffed and underfunded.
We ask that the House reject the Government’s proposed trial, preventing the invasive and stigmatising practice of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients.
from 105 citizens
Islam
Wahabbism is the cause of radicalization and terrorism within Islam. It is a direct threat to Australian safety, national security, communities, institutions, culture and way of life. This vile form of islam is controlled from abroad by Saudi Arabia. The Saudis assert this control by financing the construction of mosques and islamic schools in which they employ specially trained firebrand Wahabbi Imams and Shieks to radicalize and corrupt the minds of otherwise peaceful muslims into this anti-Australian, hate filled mindset using Saudi state sponsored literature that misrepresents Islamic teacherings. The Saudis generate the wealth to finance this operation by selling their oil to western countries like America and the UK.
We therefore ask the House to consider and implement the following actions. 1. Legislate Pauline Hansons calls for a royal commission into Islam. 2. Shut down all Islamic mosques, schools and institutions linked to Saudi Arabia or other bodies engaging in Wahabbism. 3. Place trade sanctions against Saudi Arabia and shut down their Australian Embassy. 4. Start drilling for more Australian oil so Australians don't have to rely on Saudi oil.
from 62 citizens
Register of Members' Interests
'The purpose of the Register of Members' Interests is to place on the public record Members' interests which may conflict, or may be seen to conflict, with their public duty.' Politicians are required to disclose in their Register of Members' Interests if they own an investment property and any mortgages associated with their investment property. However, politicians are not required to disclose whether or not a property investment is negatively geared. With limited political actions (if any) taken to curb negative gearing (a high risk negative-carry investment strategy), the Australian public should have the right to know which politicians hold a negatively geared property investment to better scrutinise potential conflicts of interest with their public duty.
We therefore ask the House to require all politicians (spouses included) who own an investment property to disclose in their Register of Members' Interests whether or not they they are holding negatively geared property investment. We also ask the House to require all politicians (spouses included) to disclose in their Register of Members' Interests if they are a guarantor in any way shape or form of a mortgage for another family member.
from 118 citizens
Paris Agreement
(a) The damage and impairment to the Australian economy and the financial pain inflicted on our citizens and residents caused by inflated energy costs will be very significant and are very likely to be increased in future. (b) Australian greenhouse gas emissions are insignificant and have no measurable influence on global average temperature, meaning that Australia's involvement is merely a political gesture. (c) The ratification of the Agreement seems to have ignored the following statements of IPCC's Fifth Climate Assessment Report (5AR) of 2013: (i) atmospheric carbon dioxide increased over the 15 years prior to the report, (ii) there was no statistical certainty that average global temperature increased over that time and (iii) 111 of 114 climate model runs predicted greater warming over that period than the temperature observations indicate. These statements undermine the notion of significant manmade warming and undermine the credibility of claims based on the output of climate models. (d) The ratification appears to have ignored the detail of the Agreement, specifically "Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels". The Agreement gives no indication of when "pre-industrial" refers to, no indication of how global average temperatures at that time were determined or of how the current average global temperature will be calculated for the purposes of the Agreement.
Australia to follow the lead of the USA and immediately withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.
from 3,102 citizens
Code of Conduct
Discussion on the introduction of a code of conduct covering senators and members has continued for over three decades. Both the House and Senate continue to be resistant to the establishment of Codes of Conduct, with the House of Representatives fighting off six attempts over four decades. Previous inquiries and expert studies have all concluded that a code of conduct for Commonwealth parliamentarians should be adopted. It would form an important element in any program designed to foster public trust in, and improve public perception of, Parliament and its members. Irrefutably, it is well past time that there be an oversight legislation that acts as clear line in the sand and is a stick to hold Parliamentarians to the standards required for our democratic system to work. The code would set public standards by which the behaviour of parliamentarians can be assessed; provide a basis for assessing proposed actions and so guide behaviour; provide an agreed foundation for responding to behaviour that is considered unacceptable and assure and reassure the community that the trust placed in parliamentarians is well placed. In order for a code to be credible it must not only be aspirational but also contain clear guidelines and injunctions, prescriptions and prohibitions
We request the House to adopt a binding code of conduct for Commonwealth parliamentarians immediately or, alternatively, take the decision on the adoption of a Code of Conduct to a referendum vote no later than at the time of the next Federal election, whereby the citizenry can finalise this issue.
from 29 citizens
Housing: Solar Panels and Battery Technology
This petition is brought to the House primarily because your MPs have stopped communicating with voters. No longer do they acknowledge good thoughts or ideas in social media or even in replies to emails so we the petitioners have to ask in the House. Many MPs go so far as to block voters from reading the MPs thoughts on social media and block them from participating in those discussions. Australia has committed herself to reducing emissions under the Paris agreement and a lot of hot air is being wasted in the House and more pixels scattered nonsensically in the media when they discuss emission reduction. Thought must be given to having solar panels and battery storage on as many houses as possible.
The petitioners therefore ask the House to make it compulsory for all house sales to have solar panels and battery storage before the sale can be finalised,. This would be for new and old houses. The actual number of panels and size of storage needs to be determined, by the likes of CSIRO. The cost of solar panels and battery would be about 1% or less of current house prices so the impact on home owners and buyers would be minimal. Rental houses would also be required to have solar panels and battery installed before the contract can be finalised. The cost of doing this would be negative geared and over the life of the system be again minimal.
from 17 citizens
Video Games
As video games grow ever more popular amongst the masses, their marketing and money grabbing techniques get more and more invasive. The latest fad amongst large game companies is to use a system called lootboxes in order to hand out in game items and is essentially unregulated gambling. Lootboxes typically come in different categories relating to drop rates (%chance of getting items in said categories) that typically go for common to legendary, with legendary being exceedingly rare to get. The problem is that most games give you lootbox bundles that can cost hundreds of dollers and can come with over 50 boxes. However, out of the fifty you might open, only 3 may contain legendary items, 5 may contain rates and the rest as commons and uncommons. Since you want those legendary items (typically the most powerful or bragging rights) you buy more boxes to only have a chance at getting such items, essentially gambling, targeting children and teens. China recently introduced a law forcing companies to publish the drop rates of said items (usually as percentages). I believe this could benefit Australian parents and children. It is time for Australia to catch up with the times and start looking into shady business practices such as these.
This is where we ask the house to act. As China already has, force the companies to publish droprates of items if they use this lootbox system in order to start regulating this child gambling.
from 12 citizens
Gold Card
Australian nurses, doctors, physiotherapists, radiographers and laboratory technicians who volunteered and essentially worked as a civilian army in Vietnam from October 1964 to December 1972 during the Vietnam War: numbered approximately 450 individuals, of which it is thought that more than one third have died; were from hospitals and health care agencies in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia; were entitled to ComCare up to the age of 65, if they were assessed to be eligible but, due to age, none are now eligible; were awarded the Vietnam Logistic & Support and Australian Active Service Medals; and, worked under the authority of the United States Army as did the Australian Army members who have been granted recognition including Gold Cards. War widows and Vietnam boat people (who arrived in Australia without papers proving their involvement during the war) have been granted entitlements denied to the non-military health care personnel for whom we are seeking the Gold Card as a minimum entitlement. The Returned Services League is in full support of these personnel who are eligible to become members of the League.
Urgent consideration be given to the awarding of Gold Cards to all surviving Australian nurses, doctors, physiotherapists, radiographers and laboratory technicians who volunteered and essentially worked as a civilian army in Vietnam from October 1964 to December 1972 during the Vietnam War.
from 1,127 citizens
Refugees
Crime among African refugees, particularly the second generation as is usual, is exceptionally high. Why then, do we continue to accept undocumented, un-vet-able, often violent refugees from violent places such as Sudan through UNHCR, an organization that has done more to destroy African agriculture and whose actions have lead to murder of millions? The only job of the Australian Government is to look after the interests of the Australian people, nobody else. Why is it that the needs of Australian's are currently considered secondary to the needs refugees from other countries?
Stop accepting refugees from UNHCR, particularly African refugees.
from 220 citizens
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:03): Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Palestine
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2017 regarding the petition to formally recognise the 'State of Palestine', as submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions for consideration (reference number PN0025).
The Australian Government is a strong supporter of a two-state solution that would allow Israel and a future Palestinian state to exist side-by-side in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. We firmly believe that an independent Palestinian state can only emerge from a directly negotiated agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Australia has repeatedly encouraged both sides to take the courageous steps necessary to resume direct negotiations as soon as possible in order to achieve this.
Australia is a long-standing supporter of the Palestinian people. In 2016 - 17, Australia will provide approximately $43 million through our aid program to the Palestinian Territories. Our assistance is helping to strengthen the economic and social foundations of a future Palestinian state which can provide jobs and services for its people.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Bishop
NBN
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 27 March 2017 regarding the petition (PN0056) for the National Broadband Network (the network) rollout to be prioritised to those premises currently served by the Ascot Exchange, particularly to households in the suburb of Belmont.
The Australian Government understands how important it is to make fast broadband available to all Australians as soon as possible. Telecommunications service providers are private companies operating in a competitive market, and their operational practices such as extending and improving their networks, are commercial decisions. For these reasons, in the Statement of Expectations issued to NBN Co Limited (nbn) on 24 August 2016, the Government asked the company to roll out the network as soon and as cost-effectively as possible, but to prioritise areas that are poorly served to the extent that this is commercially and operationally feasible.
The Australian Government has put the network on track to affordably deliver high-speed broadband to all Australian homes and businesses by 2020. By the end of May 2017, more than 5 million homes and businesses could access the network, with over 2.2 million active users. I am confident that nbn will achieve its target of offering services to half of Australian premises by the middle of 2017.
nbn's website at www.nbnco.com.au indicates that the company expects Belmont residents will be able to order an nbn-based service commencing in the third quarter of 2017 through fibre to the node technology. However, three construction work fronts overlap Belmont so the dates of switch-on in each network service area will likely be staggered throughout the second half of this year. To account for the inherent unpredictability of construction completion, nbn will continue to update its website to indicate any changes to rollout timing. Accordingly, residents are encouraged to register their particular addresses via the nbn website to enable them to receive 'Ready For Service' notifications when construction in their area is complete.
All residents in Belmont can be assured that Australia will be a world leader in universal high-speed broadband access by 2020, and it will provide our nation with a strong competitive advantage in a world of accelerating digital change. Australia's national broadband penetration and access speed is rising rapidly due to changes implemented by the Coalition Government to complete the network more quickly and cost-effectively. Network access has more than doubled in the last 12 months and nbn's coverage footprint will reach more three quarters of all premises in Australia by mid-2018.
Thank you for bringing Belmont residents' concerns to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Mr Fifield
Syria
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 20 March 2017 regarding petition number EN0093.
The Government has consistently condemned the actions of all sides that have contributed to the appalling humanitarian crisis in Syria. At a meeting of the Global Counter-ISIS Coalition ill March, I reiterated the urgent need for a political solution in Syria. Australia regularly calls for improved humanitarian access and the protection of civilians in the International Syria Support Group, but tragically, the conflict's complexity continues to frustrate efforts to find a solution.
Since 2011, Australia has committed more than $433 million in humanitarian assistance to Syria. This includes support to humanitarian organisations to assist conflict-affected civilians inside Syria and refugees in Jordan and Lebanon. Australia has also welcomed 12,000 additional refugees from Syria and Iraq, beyond our regular humanitarian intake.
ISIS has committed terrible atrocities in Syria. To counter this threat, Australia continues to make a major contribution to the Global Counter-ISIS Coalition. So far, 30 per cent of ISIS' Syrian territory has been liberated with Coalition support.
We strongly support initiatives to hold those responsible for atrocities to account, including by contributing funding to the recently established International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to gather evidence of crimes in Syria.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Bishop
Online Compliance System
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your correspondence of 1 March 2017 about the petition presented to the House on 27 February 2017 (EN0098) to suspend the online compliance system.
My Department will not suspend its compliance activities as requested in petition EN0098, but will continue to refine and improve the processes as part of the agency's continual commitment to transform services and service channels to ensure Australian Government outlays are protected and government outcomes are achieved.
As you may be aware, the Government proposed more thorough compliance work in the 2015-16 budget to ensure that welfare payments had been correctly made and to recoup overpayments. While the vast majority of welfare recipients do the right thing, the unfortunate reality is that some people deliberately defraud the system while others inadvertently do not accurately declare their income while on benefits.
Part of my Department's compliance work includes checking a person's self-reported income information provided to the Department with the income information reported to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) by the person's employer. Where there is a discrepancy between the two sets of data, the recipient is provided with an opportunity to go online to explain it, and if they cannot, then a debt may be raised.
My Department's aim in conducting online compliance is to be as reasonable as possible to the recipient, while also fair to the taxpayer who funds the welfare payments. Ongoing refinements are being made to the system based on feedback received from stakeholders, departmental staff and people subject to the compliance checks.
On 10 April 2017, the Commonwealth Ombudsman released the findings of his Own Motion investigation. The Ombudsman found the system is reasonable in its data-matching, was designed appropriately, and is accurately calculating debts in accordance with legal and policy requirements. The Ombudsman agrees that it is reasonable and appropriate for the Department to ask recipients to explain discrepancies following data-matching activities as a means of safeguarding welfare payment integrity.
The Ombudsman has also noted that the enhancements introduced in February 2017 have improved the usability and accessibility of the system and will ensure the system is sustainable. The report includes eight recommendations. The Government has accepted all of these and a number have already been implemented. The Department will use the learnings from this report to inform further compliance interactions with welfare recipients.
As with all large processes, my Department will constantly monitor and improve them and will continue to welcome feedback.
The compliance work that my Department undertakes is important for the integrity of the welfare system and to protect taxpayers' funds. There are many cases where people have reported significantly less income than what the ATO has reported. These have led to amounts of over $40,000 being owed back to the taxpayer. I believe it is owed to the taxpayer to investigate discrepancies between self-reported income data and ATO data, and my Department aims to do it in as reasonable and straightforward a way as possible.
I trust this information is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Human Services, Mr Tudge
Kingsford Legal Centre
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 20 March 2017 about Petition number EN0128 which raises funding for community legal centres, and particularly Kingsford Legal Centre.
I appreciate the valuable work undertaken by the Kingsford Legal Centre in helping disadvantaged clients to resolve their legal problems. The Australian Government is committed to protecting the most vulnerable members of our community, including by providing access to justice.
I am pleased to advise you that, on 24 April 2017, together with the Minister for Women, Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash, and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion, I announced that the Turnbull Government will provide a further $55.7 million over the next three years to community legal centres ($39 million) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services ($16.7 million), as part of the 2017-18 Budget.
The Australian Government recognises the important role of the legal assistance sector in providing access to justice to the most vulnerable Australians. This Government is committing record funding to the legal assistance sector, providing over $1.7 billion to legal aid commissions, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services over five years to 2020. The funding announced on 24 April not only fully restores funding that was part of a 2013 budget savings measure, but also fixes the 'Dreyfus Funding Cliff' imposed by Labor on community legal centres.
The additional $39 million for community legal centres is to be directed to family law and family violence related services. Community legal centres and their clients have consistently identified this as the area of greatest need, and the Turnbull Government has listened. From its first days, the Government has targeted violence against women and children as one of its highest priorities, and this funding continues to deliver on that commitment.
The funding builds on the Turnbull Government's existing investment of $45 million for front-line legal assistance and family law services as part of the $100 million Women's Safety Package and the $100 million Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. It also complements the Government's commitment of $3.4 million in the 2017-18 Budget to expand the pilot program for specialist domestic violence units.
The further injection of funding to community legal centres will alleviate pressure across the legal assistance sector while directing Commonwealth funding to the highest priority issues. The Australian Government will work with states and territories to ensure funding is distributed to where it is most needed, in line with collaborative service planning processes already undertaken under the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services 2015-20 (the Agreement),
Funding for community legal centres is not a matter for the Australian Government alone. The Agreement recognises the mutual responsibility the Commonwealth and states and territories share in improving access to justice. I welcome the recent announcement made by the New South Wales Government that it will contribute an additional $6 million to CLCs for over two years, from 2017-18. This outcome is a perfect example of the Agreement working as intended, by reflecting that a significant proportion of CLC work relates to state and territory laws.
I note that Petition EN0128 also refers to the Productivity Commission's Report into Access to Justice Arrangements. The Productivity Commission recommended that the Commonwealth, states and territories together invest an additional $200 million per year for legal assistance services. The Productivity Commission also made many other recommendations about improving legal assistance in Australia, including the need for a more systemic approach to funding allocation that reflects relative legal need and the cost of delivering services. Consistent with these recommendations, the Agreement encourages legal assistance providers in each jurisdiction to build a collaborative, sector-wide approach to service delivery, through more formalised service planning processes.
By strengthening service planning activities, jurisdictions can identify gaps and overlaps in legal assistance services, to assist with improving front-line service delivery. The outcomes of this process inform state and territory decision-making about the allocation of Commonwealth and state and territory funding for community legal centres in each jurisdiction. This supports a sustainable legal assistance sector by ensuring the sector works together to maximise the reach of services, ensure services are directed where they are needed most and that services are delivered in a coordinated and streamlined way.
On 29 April 2016, I released the Australian Government's response to the Productivity Commission's report. The response addresses the recommendations implemented to date, including the significant reforms in the legal assistance sector to increase its ongoing sustainability. I will continue to work with my state and territory counterparts to progress further work on the Productivity Commission's recommendations.
Thank you again for your interest in this issue.
Yours faithfully
from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis
Commonwealth Electoral Act
Dear Mr Vasta
I refer to your letter dated 20 March 2017 in relation to petition EN0130, which requests that the House determine if Members of Parliament can own or purchase zero taxation offshore accounts from the Cayman Islands, 'often called Caymans offshore accounts with regards to section 44 of the Australian Constitution'.
Section 44 of the Constitution sets out several bases on which a person is incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives.
Either House of Parliament may refer any question respecting the qualifications of a Senator or Member of the ! louse of Representatives to the Court of Disputed Returns in accordance with the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Whether or not the Senate or House of Representatives pursues that course in a given case is a matter for that chamber.
Any person wishing to become a member of the Commonwealth Parliament should consult the Australian Electoral Commission about the requirements that they need to satisfy and should consider seeking their own legal advice about whether they meet those requirements.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention. I appreciate the important work of the Standing Committee on Petitions in putting community concerns before the Parliament.
Yours faithfully
from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis
Non-Discriminatory Language
Dear Mr Vasta
Thank you for your letter of 22 May 2017 to the Minister for Social Services, Hon Christian Porter MP, regarding Petition number EN0147, which requests the words "disability" and "disabled" be replaced with "para-abled" and "parability" in documentation. Your letter has been referred to me as the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services as the matter raised is within my portfolio responsibilities.
The Australian Government supports the use of non-discriminatory language and promotes the use of inclusive language to address and describe all people, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity and physical or intellectual characteristics. The Government uses person-centred language that focuses on the person first and the disability last.
While I appreciate the petitioner's suggestion, the Government does not propose to change the way it uses language to address people with disability at this time.
The National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 sets a vision for an inclusive society where people with disability have the opportunity to participate in all aspects of life. The Strategy is based on a social model of disability which recognises that attitudes, practices and structures are disabling and can prevent people from enjoying economic participation, social inclusion and equality. The idea that people with disability can be more disadvantaged by society's response to their disability than the disability itself is leading to a greater focus on policies that seek to remove these barriers.
The Strategy identifies actions to ensure that mainstream service systems and regulatory frameworks become part of the solution to overcoming barriers for people with disability. Further information on the Strategy is available on the Department of Social Services' website at www.dss.gov.au/nds.
I trust this information will be of assistance in responding to the petitioners.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, Ms Prentice
Image Based Sexual Assault
Dear Mr Vasta
I refer to your correspondence of 22 May 2017 to the Minister for Communications, Senator the Hon Mitchell Fifield, regarding petition number EN0169. Your letter has been forwarded to me given that the subject of the petition falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
The petition states that 'image-based sexual assault' should be criminalised. The petition provides that advances in technology have led to the emergence of various forms of online sexual exploitation, including the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, non-consensual doctoring of images, and non-consensual sharing of images on pornography websites.
The Australian Government shares the concerns raised by the petition about technology-facilitated abuse. The Australian Government recognises that these are real and serious problems and is addressing the issue through a range of measures, including education, victim support and legislation.
On 19 May 2017 the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council agreed to the National statement of principles related to the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images (the principles). The principles are designed to assist the Commonwealth, states and territories to create an effective and consistent criminal framework to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The principles identify best practice to be adopted and implemented as each jurisdiction reviews and develops its criminal law, policy and practices. The principles address core criminal justice issues including:
• victim protection
• concepts of sharing and types of images captured
• consent and harm
• investigation and enforcement, and
• penalties.
Cybercrimes against the person, including investigations related to sharing intimate images, are generally handled by state and territory police. There are a range of state-based offences that have been used to prosecute the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including stalking, blackmail, indecent publishing and identity theft. Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia have legislation specifically criminalising the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and several other jurisdictions have announced an intention to do so.
There are also existing Commonwealth offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code that can capture this conduct. For example, section 474.17 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 criminalises using the internet, social media or mobile phone in a menacing, harassing or offensive manner, punishable by up to 3 years' imprisonment. This offence has been used to successfully prosecute instances of the sharing of intimate images without consent.
The role of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, established in 2015, has also been expanded to address image-based abuse. Funding of $4.8 million is being provided to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner under the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022 to develop a new online complaints portal which will allow victims to report incidents of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and to access immediate and tangible support.
The portal will be informed by research on how images are being hosted and disseminated, and the experiences of women and girls in Australia. The portal is in the early stages of development and is expected to be launched in the second half of 2017.
The Department of Communications and the Arts is undertaking public consultation on the implementation of a proposed civil penalty regime to deter perpetrators and content hosts who share intimate images or videos without consent. The regime would enable action to be taken to have images removed and limit further distribution with minimal additional stress to victims. This regime would provide a complementary avenue to the criminal justice system for victims to seek redress.
In April 2016 the eSafety Commissioner launched a new initiative, eSafetyWomen, to empower all Australian women to take control of their online experiences. The eSafetyWomen website provides information and resources to raise awareness of technology-facilitated abuse and what can be done about it, including practical advice on the steps women can take if their intimate images are shared without their consent.
Since 1 July 2016 the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has also been providing national face to face training workshops to front line workers on technology-facilitated abuse. The aim of these workshops is to give front line staff the skills, knowledge and tools to better assist women at risk from technology facilitated abuse, including the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Justice, Mr Keenan
PETITIONS
Statements
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (10:03): We continue to see people preferring to petition the House via our e-petitions system, with e-petitions comprising over 80 per cent of petitions in this report. It is very encouraging to see members of the public engaging with the parliament in this way.
The committee remains interested in how petitioners are experiencing the e-petitions system, noting this parliament is the first time the system has been used. The Petitions Committee has extended the submissions deadline and we are hopeful that more petitioners will share their experiences of the new system with us. Parliaments in jurisdictions such as the UK and Canada have provided submissions on their respective e-petitions systems, which will prove very instructive in recommending any enhancements to our own system.
I will continue to provide updates to the House on the work of the Petitions Committee and the inquiry into e-petitions.
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (10:04): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, I wish to make a statement concerning the committee's visit to New Zealand. As a farmer myself, I've always looked at New Zealand agriculture with envy. They certainly seem to have a much greater focus from their government on agriculture. That's of no surprise, of course, when you learn that 70 per cent of their export income is earnt from agriculture. They not only have always seemed to get better trade access, particularly in the European Union—and I know that, as a lamb producer, I've often been frustrated and envious of the fact that they get a much greater quota into the European Union—but also had a free trade deal with China many years before our government successfully negotiated a free trade agreement with China. One important point to note that we learnt while we were in New Zealand is that the dairy industry there has grown by 300 per cent since the year 2000.
The visit was hosted by the New Zealand parliament, and I especially want to thank the Speaker of the New Zealand parliament, the Rt Hon. David Carter, for his welcome and hospitality. Mr Speaker, I can assure you that your undoubted hospitality to other delegations that have visited our parliament was reciprocated very much in kind by David Carter, and I do thank him.
We did learn some interesting facts about the New Zealand political system and how it differs from ours. We all know that it not only is a unicameral parliament but also has a dual voting system which, in some respects, replicates our Senate and House and brings them together in one parliament, which seems to give them more flexibility to get things done, as we've seen in recent years. Perhaps that's something that we should consider. However, New Zealand doesn't have a written constitution, which allows much greater flexibility to make those sorts of changes.
While we were in the New Zealand parliament, we also met with the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy, and discussed issues around biosecurity. Of course, uppermost in their mind, at the moment, is the incursion of myrtle rust. We also discussed trade issues and some of the opportunities that might come around the Brexit issues and our country's new country-of-origin food-labelling system and how that might impact on New Zealand. We also met with the New Zealand Primary Production Committee, which is chaired by Mr Ian McKelvie MP. That was a very interesting discussion, given that parliamentary committees in the New Zealand parliament have a more important role, I guess you could say, in developing legislation and policy. Once legislation is introduced into the parliament by the minister, it is then automatically referred to the committee who conducts public hearings, takes public submissions, gathers evidence and then goes back to the minister with a recommendation. Once again, many members of our committee thought that that was a good system.
Of course, the main focus of our visit, complementary with our current inquiry, was looking at water resources and the most efficient use of water resources. Of course, in New Zealand they have a different set of challenges and circumstances. They only capture three per cent of the water that falls and utilise that in agriculture. Of course, we have to make sure we use every single drop here that falls. Once again, they are looking at—
Mr Katter: We don't use any in North Queensland! We use 0.5 in North Queensland!
Mr RICK WILSON: We're looking at, the member for Kennedy, capturing more water here and using that water more efficiently, as the Deputy Prime Minister has been talking about for some time. But New Zealand irrigation encaptures about five per cent of their arable area, whereas in Australia it's around one per cent of our arable area, so it is an important sector. Of course, as the intensification of agriculture occurs, they're having challenges around the contamination of water courses and other things.
I'm going to leave it to the Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources to mention some of the particular visits and site visits that we did, but I just want to run through some thank yous before I wind up. I particularly want to thank Ruth Lewis from the visits and ceremonies office in New Zealand, who was fantastic and did a wonderful job of running the trip smoothly; Winton Holmes from the clerk's office of the New Zealand parliament, who was also there to support and advise us as we travelled around; His Excellency Peter Woolcott, the Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand, and, particularly, his staff Ms Anna Brown and Ms Alison Duncan for their support and advice during the trip; and, of course, our own Anthony Overs and the secretariat here in our Parliament House, along with the international parliamentary office, who made all the arrangements for a very smooth, very informative and worthwhile visit.
I just want to conclude by saying that New Zealand is our closest friend in the international community. We compete fiercely on the sporting field and in the trade field, but we have many, many common interests and we can certainly work together to achieve those interests.
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (10:10): We had a very thorough, comprehensive and informative trip to New Zealand, but I have to say I've never come across so much hatred for our beloved possums as you find in New Zealand. But New Zealand has an ambitious plan to become predator-free by 2050, and that is through removing all of those introduced species. Our two countries collaborate very strongly on biosecurity, which is very, very important. As the chair has mentioned, New Zealand has seen an incursion of myrtle rust in the last four or five months. There is a strong collaboration with Australia on how to manage that, with the aim of eradication. This has to happen because myrtle rust will have a significant economic impact on the Manuka honey production in that country. Manuka honey, we found, can fetch up to $1,000 per kilo.
Biosecurity was raised in nearly every meeting that we had, particularly with the politicians that we met and in particular the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Nathan Guy MP. As I am from Tasmania, I dared not mention apples while I was there. We won't go into that! The committee met with members of the New Zealand parliamentary committee on primary production, chaired by Mr Ian McKelvie MP and the Hon. Damien O'Connor MP, and we discussed the issues of interest to our committee—water-use efficiencies, country-of-origin food labelling and export market access. The New Zealand parliament are keen to look at how they may introduce similar country-of-origin food labelling. Although perhaps it is not as thorough as what we have, a private member's bill introduced by Green Party MP Mr Steffan Browning is a start. The bill may not be dealt with before the upcoming election, but it's certainly one for us to monitor.
Given the committee's current inquiry into irrigation and water efficiencies, we met with a number of people in this space, in particular Irrigation New Zealand's Deputy Chair, Hugh Ritchie, and its CEO, Andrew Curtis. Like most of Australia, New Zealand have an abundance of water resources supporting intensive agricultural production, which makes up about 6.5 per cent of their GDP but dominates New Zealand exports. The challenge, as we heard from just about everyone we met, is with water quality. New Zealand is less driven by water-use efficiency but the heat—the political and public heat—is on quality, the discharge into rivers and the recharge into aquifers. This will drive efficiencies, maybe not to achieve a reduction in volumes but to manage nutrient load. This in turn will drive innovation and technology in New Zealand.
New Zealand farmers are well supported by telecommunications and connectivity, which is really exciting. Fonterra are continuing to develop smart apps for farmers, as we saw firsthand—for example, the ability to look at remote sensing in paddocks so that they can reduce inputs and increase productivity. The dairy cows are wearing Fitbits on their collars to provide information on oestrus so a farmer can take advantage of choosing the sex of calves.
New Zealand continue to develop smarter land and water-use strategies in agriculture to manage water quality and the challenges of intensification. But what was really impressive to the committee was the collaborative nature of academia, government research centres—similar to our GBEs here in Australia—and industry. This seems to put New Zealand in good stead to ensure farmers now and into the future are skilled, knowledgeable and adaptive to the transitions in technology and research.
The committee's previous inquiry into honey bee biosecurity enabled us to discuss further with New Zealand industry, in a visit to Arataki Honey in the Hawke's Bay region and its director Pam Flack, the role of management and the status of its industry some 17 years after the initial varroa incursion. We were informed that it's imperative that Australia have suitable chemicals registered for when varroa hits our shores. However, the mite is becomingly increasingly resistant to the chemicals being used. This is more the case in the US but will soon become the norm. While the number of New Zealand hives has increased since varroa, this is mainly due to the market demand and price of Manuka honey. However, the threat of myrtle rust on the source of this product means it is a precarious time for the industry and their economy in New Zealand.
Like the chair, I would also like to thank those who generously gave their time to committee members to assist us with our work and our extensive program. As the chair mentioned, Ms Ruth Lewis and Mr Winton Holmes from the New Zealand Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives really made our visit truly memorable and gave us such a holistic view of the agriculture industry in New Zealand and one that we will treasure, I think, for many years to come. I would also like to thank the Australian High Commissioner, His Excellency Mr Peter Woolcott, as well as Anna Brown, Alison Duncan and of course the Right Honourable David Carter MP, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for his frank discussions about New Zealand politics and the structure of their parliament and for his hospitality. Thank you very much.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Continuing the Energy Transition) Bill 2017
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (10:15): Pursuant to standing order 113 I fix the next sitting Monday as the day for presenting the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Continuing the Energy Transition) Bill 2017.
Religious Certification (Non-Discrimination) Bill 2017
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:15): Pursuant to standing order 113 I fix the next sitting Monday as the day for presenting the Religious Certification (Non-Discrimination) Bill 2017.
Commission of Inquiry (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2017
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:16): Pursuant to standing order 113 I fix the next sitting Monday as the day for presenting the Commission of Inquiry (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2017.
BILLS
Electoral Amendment (Banning Foreign Political Donations) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Katter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:18): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I spoke to the member of parliament for the state's northern seat of Western Australia and asked her how much of her electorate, which is the top half of Western Australia, is owned by foreigners, and she said, 'Almost all of it.' I said, 'I'm not looking for a pejorative comment; I'm looking for a real assessment', and she said, 'I'm giving you a real assessment; I don't tell lies.' What precipitated my interest was that I had heard that Yakamunda and five stations related to it—Yakamunda was the biggest station property in Australia—have been sold to the Chinese and that Chinese credit bought a number of stations quite separately from that. And of course a number of the Kidman properties are also in Western Australia. It was the considered opinion of that state member of parliament that almost all of her electorate was foreign owned.
Now we're not allowed to use the Fitzroy water. There is only the Daly and the north-western quadrant of Australia. There is the Daly in the Northern Territory; there is the Victoria, which is so small you couldn't worry about it; and there are the Ord and the Fitzroy. It has been decided that we'll not use any more water from the Daly, which is hardly using any water. The Fitzroy won't be used, so that only leaves the Ord. The Ord stage 2 and 3 were given by this government to a Chinese corporation. The port of Darwin was sold to Chinese as well. A significant portion of stage 1 of the Ord is also owned by Chinese.
That is a quarter of Australia's land mass. They own all the water that's available, they own all the land and they own the port. Well, what do we Australians own? Future generations will call the people in this place—not the people on the cross benches, because we have tenaciously, unitedly fought the fight—but the people on that side and that side are the people that have sold this country out and sold it off. That is not a pejorative statement. That is a statement of reality. We don't need a lot of perspicacity to figure out why the port was sold, because the person in the ministry responsible for selling the port—as has been publicly announced, and he has not denied it—is on $880,000 a year. Well, if he's getting $200,000 or $300,000 as a retired minister from this place in superannuation, he most certainly retires handsomely, doesn't he?
Who are the supine people in Cabinet that agreed to this? Who are the backbench that did not raise it in the party room the next week? Are we people on the cross benches the only people that oppose the sell-off of our nation? On numerous occasions I have said that if the sale of an asset brings to us markets that we don't have, if it brings technology that we don't have, and if it brings capital that we don't have, then there may be some case for it. I emphasise 'maybe'. We made a number of those decisions in the Queensland parliament when I was there. But when our government fell in 1990, the water was not owned by foreigners, the land was not owned by foreigners and our economy was not owned by foreigners.
I used to say that I only have to keep two groups of people happy. That's two or three people in Brisbane and two or three people in my electorate. So long as I went along, to quote Bill Hayden, to 10,000 fetes worse than death, and made my press releases and noises, I would be the member for Kennedy for forever. Now, thank goodness, the Australian people are waking up to themselves and not voting along party lines any more. I remind the people on both sides of this House, you're on 30 per cent, they're on 30 per cent and we're on 30 per cent. When we start working a little bit more closely together, as I think we need to, on the cross benches, then your day of selling your nation off and out is over.
Having said those things, just how damaging is it to the Australian economy? Well, there was a decision made that we won't make cars in Australia anymore. That's not a decision by Toyota. That is a decision by respective Australian governments. All they had to do was say that every car bought under a government contract would be Australian made. That's all they had to do, and we would still have a car industry. But that would cost us about $15 billion a year, particularly in Queensland, where almost all the coal seam gas is. There's $23 billion a year in export earnings coming into this country from coal seam gas, and it just boomerangs back out again, because it's all foreign owned and there's hardly any local content in coal seam gas. You dig a hole in the ground, put a pipe in it and join it to some other pipes that go to the coast. There's no work there at all. It's not like coal or iron ore where you're employing hundreds of thousands of people to dig it out of the ground. So we just gave away $23 billion a year. Well, there's $40 billion a year we've given away. And then there's the little issue of ethanol.
My honourable friend here—my very honourable friend, whom I have very great admiration for—the member who comes from Hobart, Tasmania, and who is one of my Independent, small-party colleagues in this place, said: 'Why have we not got ethanol? We are the only country on earth that does not have clean fuel. We have dirty, filthy fuel that kills people. Why are we the only country on earth that doesn't have it?' I said: 'That's a pretty easy question to answer. The first person to make that decision was John Anderson, who was the Leader of the National Party in this place. He made that decision. According to newspaper reports, he is now on the board of one or two coal, oil and gas companies. The second one was Mark Vaile, who, again, according to media reports, is on the board of a number of oil, coal and gas companies. The third one was Mr Ferguson from the Labor side. He is purportedly on three oil, gas and coal seam gas company boards. And Mr Macfarlane, the last one to make the decision, is working for the oil, gas and minerals council of Queensland. Then you ask me: why were these decisions made? If they're getting all these handouts and promises, or whatever you want to call them, if they're getting all of these things, then surely they gave some small contribution to their political parties. Surely, the only reasonable and decent thing would be that their political parties should get some money out of this.
If we have an inquiry into coal seam gas, some pretty ugly stuff is going to come out, because there are people involved who are public servants on $80,000 or $90,000 a year who suddenly have assets worth $20 million a year when they're in pivotal positions with respect to the coal seam gas industry in Queensland. I'm sure that people on both sides of this House would die in the ditches to have that locked up forever. They won't want to have a close look at that.
So, if you add together the countries that have ethanol, there is China, Europe, America, almost all the South American countries—Brazil leading the way—the Philippines, parts of Indonesia and India. Who on earth hasn't got ethanol? Australia. We don't need any petrol. It only sent the Japanese to war, and the European war was about Hitler trying to get to the oilfields through Stalingrad—the gateway to the oilfields. If you add ethanol, $10 billion, and coal seam gas, $20 billion, that's $30 billion. If you add that to the money coming in from agriculture, which no longer belongs to Australia—the third element of the equation—you have $50 billion a year that this country should be getting. But because these people wanted it for their donations, for their political parties, and their own private pockets— (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wilkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:29): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill would enshrine a bill of rights in Australian law. It is modelled very closely on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2001, introduced by the then member for Calwell, and would give effect to a number of international agreements to which Australia is a signatory, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In essence the bill would render invalid any Commonwealth, state or territory law that is inconsistent with the bill of rights to the extent of that inconsistency. It would also specify that Commonwealth, state and territory laws should be interpreted so as to be consistent with the bill of rights.
The bill also allows the Australian Human Rights Commission to inquire into any act or practice, done by the Commonwealth or a state or territory government, that may infringe a right or freedom in the bill of rights. It also allows for people to make complaints to the commission if they feel that an act or practice infringes a right or freedom in this bill of rights.
This bill is necessary. It's necessary because:
believe it or not, Australia the only democratic country in the world without a bill of rights. Australia is the only democratic nation without any sort of bill of rights or charter of rights, or call it what you will.
Indeed, human rights are not addressed in the Constitution, and I suggest it would be too hard anyway to amend the Constitution in a way that would effectively protect human rights.
Moreover, what domestic legislation there already is is simply way too narrow. In fact, there are only five relevant acts: the Human Rights Commission Act 1986, which is about regulating the commission, and then there's the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and then the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. In other words, we only have legislation in place in this country to do with age, disability, race or sex, and no other aspects are covered in legislation.
In addition, I regret to say that I think the parliamentary processes in regard to human rights are, frankly, lame. For example, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is especially lame. The committees of the House of Representatives are invariably beholden to the government, because of the numbers, and Senate committees are normally ignored by the government, because they're normally not controlled by the government.
Also, international agreements and obligations that we might have thought would give some protection to Australians are routinely ignored.
This bill is also timely because in recent times there has been an alarming increase in the power of government in Australia, at the expense of the rights of the individual:
If I can just quote from The Australian Financial Review last Friday, in an article by Professor George Williams and also Daniel Reynolds, they note:
Last year, the Chief Justice of New South Wales found 52 laws in that state alone that impinge on the presumption of innocence. In February this year, the Institute of Public Affairs identified 307 laws that infringe just four rights: the rights of presumption of innocence, natural justice, the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination. And another recent study found 350 current laws that infringe democratic rights such as freedom of speech—
in other words, an abundance of evidence that there has been an alarming increase in the power of government in Australia at the expense of the rights of the individual.
Moreover, we're seeing increasingly that, even when parliament might have had a role, the parliament is being increasing bypassed in this country, and it's timely that only last Friday I was in the High Court of Australia as part of an action making the point that the parliament—or, more correctly, the government—is seeking to exceed its powers by the conduct of a non-binding voluntary postal vote on marriage equality. We had the scene of the foreign minister this morning, I think it was on Sky News, making the point again that the executive had no intention of consulting the parliament over any decision to commit troops to any conflict on the Korean Peninsula.
This bill is also timely because of the plummeting threshold for criminality in this country—particularly in and amongst all the terror laws that have been passed by this parliament the threshold for criminality has reached ludicrously low levels. The bill is also timely because we're seeing in this country increasing secrecy, indefinite imprisonment without charge, the denial of full access to the judicial system, and the ignorance of international agreements as evidenced by the government's response to some asylum seekers. We have also seen in this country the rollout of a surveillance system covering virtually all adults in Australia through the mandatory metadata retention regime. We are seeing the bullying of independent safeguards, in particular the bullying of the Human Rights Commissioner and of the ABC, and the defunding of the ABC. We are seeing the misuse of security agencies, like Border Force's attempt to patrol the streets of Melbourne to check people's papers and the inclusion of the AFP logo on Centrelink letters.
This bill will not transfer sovereignty to the courts. Rather, it makes it more likely that human rights will be considered effectively when laws are made. It will provide a benchmark for the review and improvement of our laws. To again quote Professor George Williams, this time referring to the experience of the UK after the enactment of their Human Rights Act, the impact of the United Kingdom law is monitored by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which has found that the act has not produced a significant increase in litigation or created any 'litigation culture' of rights protection. Where it has been applied in the courts, the Human Rights Act has proved useful in balancing issues like the need to fight terrorism with the democratic principles required for a free society. Indeed, the British department found in its April-June 2001 report that in local and magistrates courts, only a small fraction of the overall caseload involved human rights issues. The figure of 0.01 per cent of cases was given for one county court.
I want to give some time to the honourable member for Indi, who is generously seconding this bill, to offer a few comments, so I will allow her to use my remaining time.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:37): I'm very pleased to second the motion that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill be read a second time. Why am I so proud to be here to support the member for Denison? It's for exactly the reason he says: so much has come before the parliament in the last week that infringes on our human rights. We had the government decide that the most appropriate mechanism for members of the LGBTI community to have the same rights as heterosexual Australians is through a postal survey. That process will create real fear among this community, amongst these people's families and friends—and especially their children—which will potentially open up the doors to bigotry and hatred. I support this bill because it would stop that type of activity. We saw the government introduce legislation attempting to change the citizenship rules, causing huge fear amongst people in my community, who have been living here in Australia as great citizens and perhaps achieving a university level of education, about what their rights are as Australians. So, I totally support this legislation.
What really moved me to support this bill today was my own community. Let me talk about the students at Wodonga Senior Secondary College. Three weeks ago, they had a constitutional convention looking at human rights and how they impact on them as young people, and how human rights impact on our community of Wodonga, Beechworth and Tallangatta. I was moved not only by the knowledge of these students but also by their passion: their passion around homelessness, their passion around the right to be engaged in politics and their passion around the responsibility of the Australian government to govern for everybody, not just small groups. My commitment to that group of young people in particular was to bring their concerns to this parliament in the most practical way I could: by supporting this legislation. I call on the government to bring it on for debate. Let's have a national debate about human rights legislation that governs the whole country. We've got it in the states, particularly in my state of Victoria, and it works very well. What we need is a national approach.
In bringing my comments to a close, I congratulate the member for Denison for bringing this legislation to parliament and I call on my colleagues opposite to give serious consideration to supporting it. The member for Denison did an enormous amount of work on how this could be introduced and on the difference it would make to our country. I'm very pleased to second the motion that this legislation be read a second time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
North Korea
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:40): I 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 missile 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.
The government of North Korea stands condemned for repeatedly flouting the UN Security Council resolutions since the 1990s, which called on North Korea to stop developing and testing illegal ballistic and nuclear weapons. Since its establishment in the 1940s, North Korea has proved itself to be a bad international citizen, more content to be a rogue state than a participant in the rules based international order. In June and July, North Korea tested intercontinental ballistic missiles that appear capable of hitting a number of countries, including South Korea, Japan, the United States and Australia. Last week, there were reports that North Korea had developed a miniaturised nuclear device which could be placed on such a missile, and, in recent days, North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, threatened Guam. As a potential target of direct nuclear missile attack, and as a country with a substantial and successful Korean diaspora, including in my electorate, these concerning actions of North Korea are of vital interest to Australia.
On 5 August, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2371, a unanimous resolution comprising the toughest and most comprehensive package of sanctions against North Korea. Among other things, this resolution provides the toughest economic sanctions on North Korea and implements a full ban on North Korea's export of coal, iron, lead and seafood. All nations must defend the resolutions of the UN Security Council. China is close to North Korea and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a nation with growing economic, diplomatic, and military capability. China has an important role to play by demonstrating to North Korea that there are serious consequences of repeatedly flouting UN Security Council resolutions.
I'm proud of the key role that Australia has repeatedly played in maintaining diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea, with the aim of encouraging North Korea to cease its weapons program. While a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Australia cosponsored resolutions proposing sanctions and condemning North Korea's long-range ballistic missile testing. In addition, Australia imposed its own sanctions on individuals associated with the North Korean weapons program. As the foreign minister told the House last week:
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.
Australia plays a leadership role on global policy towards North Korea. North Korea is one of the world's worst human rights abusers. It was a distinguished Australian jurist, Michael Kirby, who headed up a Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which reported in 2014. That commission found widespread and systemic discrimination against women, against Christians—who once made up a quarter of the population and now make up less than one per cent, against the children of mixed race couples and against political dissidents. The North Korean regime practices mind control and the suppression of thought, speech and religion. People are labelled at their birth in a caste system, in accordance with their support for the regime as 'core', 'wavering' or 'hostile'. On this basis, they're allocated food, housing, education, employment and other political opportunities. Eighty thousand to 120,000 people are imprisoned without trial in prison camps in North Korea, where torture is a standard practice. Twenty-seven per cent of babies born in North Korea are seriously stunted as a result of malnourishment of their mothers during gestation. Under North Korea notions of racial purity, the commission heard the story of a mixed-race baby born to a Chinese father and a North Korean mother, where the mother was required to drown her child in a bucket. The commission heard from a witness who worked in a political prison who was required to dispose of emaciated bodies of political prisoners by burning them in a vat and using the ashes and the body parts as fertilizer.
The commission found that, while North Korea can find the funds to maintain the fourth largest army on the planet, it struggles to feed its population. In the great famine in the 1990s, when military spending was increasing, in a population of 23 million, more than one million people died from starvation. North Korea's belligerent response to the commission of inquiry was to describe the report as a pack of lies, based on the testimony of human scum.
In conclusion, North Korea must immediately abandon its missile and nuclear programs. It must use the resources spent on its nuclear and missile programs to improve the livelihood of its citizens. It must respect the human rights of its people. It must adhere to UN Security Council resolutions, rejoin the international community and contribute to peace and stability in the region, rather than deepening tensions and insecurity in other states. 'Han Ban Do Pyung Hwa Rel Ki wan Hap Ni Da'—I wish for peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. I commend the motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Alexander: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:45): I wish to commend the motion raised by the member for Berowra, which condemns the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, otherwise known as North Korea, for the ongoing development and testing of illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programs, including intercontinental ballistic missile tests in June and July 2017. I'm also deeply concerned by reports from US intelligence analysts that have assessed that North Korea has produced a miniaturised nuclear warhead that could fit inside a ballistic missile and that last week it was threatening to strike the US base of Guam. In my view the threat posed by North Korea and supreme leader Kim Jong-un is one of the greatest security challenges facing Australia, and it is something that we should be talking about in this place. However, we must proceed with caution to ensure, as much as we can, that we maintain peace, stability and security in the Asia-Pacific region.
I welcome the UN Security Council imposing new sanctions on North Korea—which was supported, importantly, by Russia and China—for carrying out intercontinental ballistic missile tests on 3 July and 28 July 2017. I welcome UN resolution 2371, which targets North Korea's primary exports, including coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore and seafood. According to Richard Roth's CNN report, the sanctions also target other revenue streams, such as banks and joint ventures with foreign companies. The sanctions will slash North Korea's annual export revenue of $3 billion by more than a third, according to a statement from the office of Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the United Nations. UN resolution 2371 not only imposes the strongest sanctions ever imposed in response to a ballistic missile test but also calls on North Korea to cease any further missile launches, nuclear tests or acts of provocation.
It is vital in the coming weeks, if it can be done, to de-escalate tensions, stop the war of words and urge North Korea to return to diplomatic talks. It's been unfortunate that, since 2009, six-party talks between Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, the US and North Korea have been suspended. In his annual new year's address in January 2017, the North Korean leader declared his country to be in the final stage of preparation for a test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile. As North Korea has carried out these tests, it is imperative that some form of diplomatic talks be convened. Any diplomatic talks may be unable to force North Korea to give up its current stockpile of weapons in the short term. As we say in political negotiations, it's best to prepare for the worst but negotiate for the best possible outcome.
In extemporising a bit about what is occurring in this situation, in light of the somewhat provocative language used by what I categorise to be the very reckless leader of North Korea, it is imperative that the political class maintain an appropriate posture in dealing with the bellicose threats issued by that leader. I particularly welcome the contribution made by someone I know, John McLaughlin, a former deputy director at the Central Intelligence Agency between 2001 and 2004, and acting director in 2004. In this period of escalating crisis, he refers on his social media to a conversation, which occurred at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, between President John F Kennedy, Vice-President Lyndon Johnson and Pierre Salinger. In that discussion President Kennedy urged restraint in the use of language about what actions would be taken and sought to clarify what Lyndon Johnson had said, because Lyndon Johnson had intimated that there'd be direct military action taken against Cuba. In a general sense, in any utterances made, I think we could do with the sort of discipline and rigour that was applied by President Kennedy. Whilst preparing for the worst, we must negotiate for the best. That implies, I think, some significant challenges for Australia in terms of its future defence should North Korea not comply with the UN sanctions and UN directives, but, at this stage, cool heads should prevail.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (10:50): I rise to second the motion of my friend and colleague the member for Berowra on the appalling situation in North Korea. I echo his concern about the ongoing situation and the actions that threaten the region, our allies and even ourselves. The North Korean nuclear crisis has been simmering away for more than a decade now, with periodic flare-ups. As this isolated and paranoid state gets closer to its goal of nuclear weapons that can reach the US, these flare-ups have become more bellicose and of greater concern. We're currently seeing the latest and most concerning of these rising tensions. Both the US and North Korea have firm positions they need to maintain. The US cannot permit a rogue nation to have a missile that can reach its coast or threaten its allies. At the same time, the North will not feel it is safe until it has a nuclear deterrent, and it will do everything it has to until it reaches this goal. These inevitable tensions are considerably inflamed by the unyielding and strong words coming from the leaders of both nations.
While the nuclear program and the threats from both sides steal the news headlines, hidden behind the crisis is an ongoing North Korean humanitarian disaster. I have sincere concerns about the horrendous violations of human rights that are occurring. The widespread nature of these violations is as shocking as the incidents themselves. Living life in a Nineteen Eighty-Four simulation, with fear and rumour of the fates that have befallen your friends, is a concept too awful to contemplate; however, dwelling on the injustice and terror of this regime achieves few results. Thanks in part to the Australian government's work to bring firsthand reports of this to the Security Council, the entire world now knows the depravity of life in North Korea.
Bennelong has one of the largest Korean communities in the country. I know the recent developments are of significant concern to them and the family members they have back in Korea—both North and South. I spoke on this issue in 2015 and at the time I said I believed the constant negativity of this debate was further entrenching the situation there. As I said at that time, negativity can only enforce the status quo; positivity can aspire to change it. I have spoken with many Bennelong locals about this sad state and I would particularly like to thank Jason Koh, of the Korean Chamber of Commerce, and Agnes Shim, of the Sydney Korean Women's Association. They, with many others, are stalwarts of the local Korean community. Views across this community seem fairly united and very opposed to the rising tensions and words of aggression. Family reunions are a particular concern locally. Many in the South—and many in Bennelong—have cousins and family members across the border. Unfortunately, time is not on their side. Many people in my local community are 70 or over, but they still remember the days of an undivided Korea, before the border split their families. Reunions, when they are allowed by the North Koreans, see no more than 300 people connect with each other over a 24-hour period. Even for this paltry time, there are over 70,000 people on the waiting list. The current rate of reunions is unworkable, and many families will not have the chance to be reunited before it is too late.
I join the voices that call for the north to allow more of these reunions as a matter of urgency. All have informed me of the tentative hope they hold for the future of their cousins across the border. It is these people who are often forgotten by the geopolitical rhetoric and aggressive headlines, but we cannot afford to forget them. On behalf of the Korean community in my electorate of Bennelong, I would like to echo this motion's calls for North Korea to return to the negotiating table. I agree that China and anyone else who has any influence should do what they can to bring peace to this peninsula. One of my constituents once told me of the genuine determination of many in the north to stay the course they have set themselves and that, as such, threats don't work. But, as he went on to say, it is the soft rain that soaks in. We must do all we can to wind down these tensions, not for the reputations of these states but for the people who have to pay the price of this conflict.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (10:55): It is a pleasure to speak on this motion on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, put forward by my good friend and colleague the member for Berowra. We've been collaborating on many things in this parliament, including on suicide prevention, and he is also a very assiduous contributor to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, as is our friend and colleague the member for Holt. I'd also like to endorse the comments by my friend the member for Bennelong, who, rightly, concentrated on the very important humanitarian issues at stake in North Korea.
North Korea is a horrendous regime in many, many respects. We have heard about the issues they have in relation to their domestic population. No people in the world have suffered more in recent years than the population of North Korea—through starvation, mistreatment and horrendous repression. But the pressing issue of the moment is the North Korean pursuit of this nuclear capability and their missile technology. Certainly it is important for the region, for our government, to really engage actively now through a process of a full-court press of diplomacy and to keep cool, calm, and calculated in relation to those measures.
We have a lot of regional architecture whereby we should be incredibly active in marshalling pressure on North Korea. In particular, as has often been aired in this discussion, our relationship with China should be leveraged to the full, for them to obviously use their extremely important relations and connections with North Korea to achieve a good outcome here. I endorse what's been said by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd about stepping back and looking at the grand bargain that we should be seeking to strike—identifying the bigger Chinese issues and interests that are at stake and seeing what we can leverage in relation to neutralising the peninsula. That can be done in a lot of ways in respect of the interests of China—not having foreign troops close to their border, et cetera. Certainly they have massive economic issues at stake, and it is in their significant interest to make sure that we have a peaceful outcome and that the trade and economic strength of the region is not undermined by the uncertainty created by North Korea.
The ANZUS alliance has been discussed in this space and is a very important part of our national security structure. We would be closely involved in working through issues related to any attack on the United States and would support our ally in defending itself. It is also important that very clear messages be sent to North Korea about the willingness of all of us to defend ourselves against these heinous threats from North Korea. But North Korea is not just a threat in our region. One of the things I'm particularly concerned about is the way North Korea cooperates so closely with Iran, another heinous regime, which brutalises gay and lesbian people, oppresses women and is a negative influence through all the tactics they employ in the region. We had news just today that they are investigating another $520 million in their missile technology, and it's been very evident that over the years they've cooperated extremely closely with North Korea on exchanging technology. All of their early missiles were in fact just straight copies of North Korean missiles, and the consequences of a nuclear armed and missile-efficient Iran is greatly concerning.
When I was in Strategy Group in Defence, it alarmed me greatly to learn of the correspondence that passed between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and President Merkel of Germany, where, effectively, he commented favourably on how Germany had dealt with the issue of the Jews during World War II and was keen on entering into a dialogue about how the problem could be resolved in relation to the remaining Jewish population in Palestine—a 10-page letter that was extremely disturbing. It shows the potential that there is in an Iranian regime that is always going to be vulnerable to the particular whims, fantasies and distortions of a leader at any given time within that anti-democratic structure that they maintain.
So North Korea and Iran are part of that same dimension of the threat to the global peace and security that we seek to maintain. I really urge the government and urge members to stay abreast of this issue and to advocate, cohesively and together, an effective outcome. There is time. We should be treating this issue with the seriousness that it deserves, and I support any government effort to diplomatically achieve a good outcome on this issue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the importance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan (MDBP) in returning the rivers 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.
This is an incredibly important motion. It's actually a motion I tabled in this House before we saw the revelations on the Four Corners episode in terms of alleged theft of water from the Murray-Darling Basin. And the reason why I originally tabled this motion was serious concern that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources was walking away from the commitment to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is serious. And, since I tabled this motion in the House, we've seen even further concerns about this minister and his ability to deal with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
We are all acutely aware, none more so than people in South Australia, of the issues facing the Murray-Darling Basin, and the most recent issues are serious allegations of water theft from upstream that threaten the future and confidence of the Basin Plan. We are all too aware now, I think, of the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister when these allegations were made. Faced with these serious allegations, he first dismissed them as a local issue. Then he went to the pub and he suggested there was some sort of conspiracy theory going on with Four Corners. We heard in this House last week member after member trying to discredit the Four Corners program rather than deal with the substantive issue, which was our serious allegation of theft. We saw member after member—it must have been in their talking points—actually try to say Four Corners wasn't telling the truth: 'There isn't truth in what Four Corners had to say.' At the same time, they tried to pay lip-service to the fact that this is an issue.
Now, many people have been very shocked by the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I know the people in South Australia were very concerned that those Liberal members of parliament, particularly from South Australia, voted against a judicial inquiry last week in this House. It is incredibly disappointing and upsetting.
But I want to take people back a bit. It was only late last year that the Deputy Prime Minister did foreshadow his intention to walk away from the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This was a historic plan that really sought to address the damage done by overextraction and severe drought for over a century. We're talking about a plan that could not be delivered for over a century. And, when that plan was delivered, it was very clear that the intention was to return 3,200 gigalitres to the river. That was very, very clear.
So, it was awfully concerning that late last year we had the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources actually writing to the state minister for environment and water in South Australia, saying that this was not going to be achieved. That is incredibly concerning: that this minister isn't taking the plan seriously and isn't actually committed to delivering the plan.
As I said in November, the Deputy Prime Minister did write and say he had no intention to deliver the extra 450 gigalitres that was promised. This letter made it crystal clear that to protect the interests of upstream farmers South Australia would be made worse off. This is deeply, deeply concerning. I would really urge that this government commit to the plan and commit to the figure of 3,200. That's all we're asking them to do, to commit to this. This is an important point to have confidence that we can restore this system to health.
I have regularly said in this place that it is a false dichotomy to say that this is irrigators versus the environment, because we know in South Australia that if you destroy the river it is no good for anyone. It is not useful for irrigators to be pumping salty water onto their crops. That doesn't work. It's no good for the environment and it's no good for the communities that use the basin. It's no good for anyone to have a dead river system. That is why this plan is so important. That is why it needs to be backed in by this government and why it needs to be taken seriously by this government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr DRUM (Murray—Chief Nationals Whip) (11:06): I second the motion. It is always interesting following a South Australian Labor person in relation to a debate on water, and certainly the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The member has spoken about this promise of 3,200 gigalitres for the environment. Quite simply, what we have is a commitment for 27,500 gigs to go to the environment. What we further have is an understanding that if we can work out how we are going to deliver these environmental outcomes better, then we are going to be able to subtract 600 gigalitres from that in relation to works and measures that we're going to be able to undertake right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin to ensure that we reach our environmental outcomes in a more water-efficient manner. That's going to effectively save up to 600 gigalitres from having to be taken down the river in the manner that it would be without these works and measures.
We are talking predominantly about 2,100 gigs that has been delivered to the environment. We understand that the Greens would like to have 4,000 gigs. We understand that there are others out there that would like to have up to 5,000 and 6,000 gigs. There are always these voices that come out of South Australia that want, want, want. All they ever do is come into this place and squawk about what they want, but they are refusing to read the plan as it is. It clearly states that this additional 450 gigalitres of upwater is not to be delivered if it is going to have social and economic detriments on the communities that are going to lose the water. This is the letter that was put forward to the South Australian minister last year, where it was clearly stipulated. Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, was saying to the water minister, 'If you think you can deliver a further 450 gigalitres of water, you show us how you can do it without substantial economic and social detriment to those individuals and communities that are going to lose this water.'
The member here, who has put this motion into the chamber, has said, 'It's no good having this fight between irrigators and the environment, because we can't effectively have a system where we might have a dead river.' So effectively what she does is defer to the environment side of things. But we cannot have a system where we have dead communities. We cannot have dead communities, which is what we are able to see when we look at the northern review that was undertaken by an independent panel to go in and look at what's happened in the north of the Murray-Darling Basin now that we've had four or five years to let the plan move into its stage of taking water away from irrigation districts and returning water to the environment. Now when we go in and review those regions, quite simply the damage is shocking. There have been independent reviews around the Goulburn Valley that have shown the damage from taking water away from those regions is shocking. If the Labor Party and the Greens want to disregard that personal and human pain, hardship and social and economic damage that has been caused by this ungodly push for environmental flows then we have to at least have somebody in the chamber who's going to question these directions. Quite simply the value of the water that's already left the Goulburn Valley has been valued at around $500 million each and every year.
We have a situation also where the Labor Party in Victoria understand this. The Labor Party in Victoria are totally supportive of the coalition's stance here in Canberra. The Labor Party in Victoria understand that to take an additional 450 gigalitres of water and send it down for the environment is absolutely farcical and a joke. The other day in this parliament, I happened to mention the concept that you, Member for Kingston, want to spend this environmental water to keep the Murray mouth open. That's one of your environmental outcomes. In the last six months of the last year, we had record flows going down the Goulburn River and the Murray River. We had those record flows for six months. That water was pouring out over the barrages, pouring out to sea. Within one month of those record flows subsiding and returning to normal, do you know what happened? They had to get the dredging machines back out to keep the Murray mouth open. It is a non-natural phenomenon. You are trying to use environmental flows. If you had an ounce of practicality, you would know you can never do it. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I will just remind the member for Murray to direct his comments through the chair.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (11:12): That was another interesting contribution from the government to this very important motion by the member for Kingston. The member for Kingston has been incredibly consistent in her defence and advocacy for what is a vital national icon. It doesn't belong to a farmer. It doesn't belong to a city dweller. It doesn't belong to an environmentalist or an irrigator. It doesn't belong to one generation of Australians. It belongs to the nation's estate. It's part of our glorious continent, and we have an obligation to take care of it.
This has been a long time coming. As the member for Kingston pointed out, this agreement has eluded previous generations. In fact, one of my Labor predecessors, the first member for Wakefield, Sydney McHugh, is on the record of the Hansard in 1939 asking a question about the Murray to then Prime Minister Menzies in his first incarnation as Prime Minister. So this has been a long time coming—a concern about irrigation and a concern about water for what is an industrial purpose, essentially. It's not farming in the normal sense of the word; it's agribusiness.
This agreement eluded previous governments. Yet we had prime ministers, from Howard onwards—Howard, with Turnbull as his then water minister, and then Rudd and Gillard—adopting a bipartisan approach with a bipartisan plan in order to make sure that this vital national icon was protected. What did we find? What does this House find? What do South Australians find? What do all those concerned find about our river, our national icon, whether they be graziers, South Australian farmers or environmentalists? They find that this divided government, with its weak Prime Minister, is so desperate. The Prime Minister is so desperate that he is prepared to sign away his own achievement under Howard. That was the price of the Turnbull-Joyce government. You never hear the words 'Turnbull-Joyce', except from National Party ministers. They're very keen on talking about Turnbull-Joyce. The reason why is that what they got was control over this water.
What they decided was, if they couldn't rip this agreement up, because that was too obvious, they'd take the cheese grater to it. What they'd do was that they wouldn't make sure that there was any compliance; they wouldn't enforce it. And with that agreement—whether it be nudge-nudge, wink-wink or whether it be actual complicity with the New South Wales government and its public servants—I'm sad to say, as revealed by the Four Corners report, what we have is basically a billion litres of water simply going missing. The idea is that these agreements will be enforced in some states and for some farmers and for some communities but not for others. That's essentially what has happened—the New South Wales government has been let off the leash, and it's been let off the leash so that this great fraud against the Commonwealth can be perpetrated.
When someone steals water, it's not like stealing sheep, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. It's not like stealing sheep at all. It's a fraud against the Commonwealth, which is a very serious crime. It's a very, very serious crime; far more serious than swiping a few sheep.
Mr Broad: Have you seen the price of sheep?
Mr CHAMPION: The member interjects about the price of sheep. I'm sure he'd like to sell some to Coles at some point, but that's another debate. What we're debating about is the river. We had the Prime Minister come down on the weekend and give a speech to the South Australian Liberal Party. He managed to get one paragraph out where he charged Anne Ruston, who is an assistant minister, to take up the case and to make sure the rules and regulations are enforced against the Deputy Prime Minister. I mean, what a farce. What a farce, leaving the South Australian government and Anne Ruston, who is a lovely person but a junior minister, to take up the fight against the Deputy Prime Minister of the country and this sectional interest, the New South Wales government, when they are committing a complete abomination against this very important national agreement and this very important national icon.
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (11:17): It gives me great pleasure to be able to talk about the issue of water in this place. I have always said, for a very long time, that, in the driest continent of the world, we should have a water minister around the Cabinet portfolio, not just looking at the Murray-Darling Basin but also looking at the salinity issues with water in Western Australia, looking at the capping of the Great Artesian Basin and looking at putting purple pipe in when we put in new suburbs so that we have recycled water whenever we build our suburbs, because water management is critical.
I just want to run people through a little bit of the journey, because, unfortunately, in this place there has been too much politics around water. The danger of that is that it takes away the confidence for people to invest. And, if people don't have the confidence to invest, we don't get the water efficiency measures that we should have and must have as a country, particularly, as our population grows from 24 million to 40 million to 50 million. The challenges around water require people in this place to have a little bit more vision than we've seen in the debate today.
The allocation of water used to be linked to the land. The only reason you could actually use that water was if you had a legitimate usage for that water. There was a view under the National Water Initiative to decouple that and allow water to be traded separate to land. This, of course, created two things. It actually created a great opportunity for water to go to the places where it had the highest value. This facilitated carrots in my patch; it has facilitated the investments in almonds; it's facilitated the movement of water along the Murray-Darling Basin—you can trade water. But this created a new challenge. And that is that people who had sleeper licences, people who didn't have or weren't using that water, then had something they could trade, and they could put that into the marketplace. So, for the very first time, we saw the impact of the over allocation of water on the Murray-Darling Basin. As a result, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan determined that we needed to return some water back to the river health. Whether it was agreed scientifically that this was the best figure, politically a figure of 2,750 gigalitres of water was determined. Of that, only 1,500 gigalitres—for those who want to know what a gigalitre is, there are 1,000 megalitres in a gigalitre, so one billion litres is a gigalitre—would be done by buybacks.
Currently, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder holds about just under 1,200 gigalitres of water. The challenge for us, firstly, is: how do we use that effectively? Before we have a debate about getting more water, we need to have a really good discussion about: how do we best use the 1,200 gigalitres of water that currently sits in the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder? That, I've got to say, is in the vicinity of a product worth about $3.6 billion.
Regarding the upper catchment and the lower catchment of the Darling River, I flew it last year because there was a lot of angst going on in my community around the fact that the water wasn't coming down the Darling River. So I got in my little lawnmower engine, actually travelled the full length of the Darling River, landed at Bourke and had a look, and flew over Cubbie Station and had a look at the upper catchments. The reason there wasn't water in the Menindee Lakes in the Darling River was there actually wasn't water in the upper catchment—it hadn't rained. So the angst that was created out there in the community was based on misinformation. That said, it then went on to rain later in the year and the Menindee Lakes filled and the Darling River flowed. I think the thing that is needed in discussions around water management is good information, because a lack of information creates angst in communities. That's what we see South Australia often playing on—that somehow those upstream are robbing them of their birthright because they aren't getting the water downstream—when, in fact, there could be legitimate reasons for it.
There does need to be good metering in the system. If we're going to have a Murray-Darling Basin Plan, we need to have reliability in the metering. We need to have a trust in that, and we need to have policing for those who infringe that. The response by the government has been very wise because it has allowed the policing to be done by New South Wales. They've got not only very stringent laws but also a responsibility to report back to COAG, which is also wise.
There does need to be, I believe, some removal of speculators out of the water market. If you are going to purchase water under the temporary sales and hold water, you need to nominate an extraction point. I think that this is a reform that needs to take place because, ultimately, the first view of the National Water Initiative was for water to flow from a legitimate user to a legitimate user, not for a speculator. But we have the knowledge about this. We're not politicising it, and we're ultimately committed to delivering a healthy river system and surety for irrigators.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (11:22): I rise today as well in support of this motion, which calls on those on the opposite side to ensure that they seriously consider the impact that their actions are having on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We all know that we're talking about the serious allegations of water theft that we saw on Four Corners a few weeks ago and how the integrity of the water market—the integrity of the plan—should be upheld and have everyone involved, whether it be irrigators, growers or the environmentalists. We need, absolutely, 100 per cent confidence in the plan itself. I know that the South Australians in the state that I come from are absolutely reeling from the reports that they are hearing and have seen about the alleged water stealing upstream, as was reported on the Four Corners program, and the rumours that this Turnbull-Joyce government is getting ready to water down or walk away from the plan.
In my state, South Australians have fought long and hard to ensure the river is healthy and supported. We had a situation where all political players from all parties got together and signed off on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We remember what it was like when those river communities were brought to their knees—their livelihoods severely threatened—during the drought. But this experience also brought communities together. It brought everyone together to fight harder than ever before for the health and the sustainability of the River Murray. In South Australia, the News Corp newspaper The Advertiser ran a campaign for well over 12 to 24 months to save the River Murray and ran very hard on it because they knew that the South Australians fought the loudest and the hardest out of all communities to ensure that we came up with this plan that will sustain the river, our industries along the river and the environmental flows.
We said back then, and we say it now, that we will do everything to ensure that we are never, ever again in the same position we found ourselves in during the drought. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is the best way that we can ensure the long-term health and sustainability of the river. We on this side, as we've heard today and last week during the debate, will not stand for the Deputy Prime Minister or anyone else making a mockery of something South Australians, in my state, have fought so hard for. We are located at the end of the river system and therefore are very heavily affected by anything that happens along the entire Murray-Darling Basin. We cheered when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was agreed to by all the basin governments in 2012, then led by my colleague the water and environment minister, the member for Watson. That was an enormous and difficult achievement. This plan ensured the environmental equivalent of returning 3,200 gigalitres to the basin, and that's all we're asking—that 3,200 gigalitres are returned to the basin as agreed in the sign-off of that plan.
The South Australian government, with the strong support of the South Australian people, continues to work hard to ensure that the basin plan is implemented on time and in full. We on this side absolutely object to the Deputy Prime Minister's saying one thing to the cameras on TV, in his interviews, and another thing when he talks behind closed doors. We heard earlier what he said in a pub in Shepparton:
I'm glad it's our portfolio, a National Party portfolio because we can go out and say no, we're not going to follow on that …
He said:
We've taken water, put it back into agriculture, so we can look after you and make sure we don't have the greenies running the show.
That gives you an example of the thinking of the man behind this. This is not a political issue. It should be something that is basically about the importance of the sustainability of the river for all Australians, whether you're in the Nationals, in the Liberal Party or on our side here in the Labor Party.
There will be no industries along the River Murray if we don't sustain the river and ensure that we look after that environment. And to have a minister for water who says, 'I'm glad it's our portfolio, because we can go out and say no,' is something that absolutely kills this plan and does nothing for our river system. (Time expired)
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (11:27): As I stand here today as the member for Parkes I represent 30 per cent of the Murray-Darling Basin, from the Macintyre River in the north to the Lachlan and right down to the lower Darling below Menindee. That puts me at a difference to the speakers on the other side, including the member for Hindmarsh, who's leaving the chamber now. His electorate is not in the Murray-Darling Basin. His electorate gets water, due to the good grace of the residents of the Murray-Darling Basin, via a pipeline. So, I'll say this right from the outset: any illegal activity needs to be dealt with in the full force of the law. There is no argument from me. But to have members of the Labor Party saying that the coalition and the Nationals, in particular, are not committed to the basin plan is scurrilous and a great nonsense.
Only a month ago a meeting of all the water ministers, including Minister Hunter from South Australia, agreed to the next stage of the basin plan, the Northern Basin Review. There was agreement right across it. This Four Corners show is being used by some as an excuse to blow up the plan. There is no-one more committed to this plan than me and my colleagues on this side of the House. What's happened is that the Labor Party haven't learnt their lesson from the Four Corners program on the live cattle trade. They make a knee-jerk reaction based on a Four Corners program. The member for Wakefield was talking about billions of litres. Just to put this in context, the A-class water in the Barwon-Darling is 10 gigalitres. That's how we measure water in the basin—in gigalitres or megalitres, not individual litres. If there has been any dispute about that, it's a very small percentage of that. But, unfortunately, residents downstream and elsewhere are now using this as an excuse for other political posturing.
At the moment, in my city of Broken Hill, we have the ridiculous situation where the mayor is calling for the pipeline not to proceed, to have a moratorium on the pipeline. A pipeline from the Murray will for now and ever more secure a regular water supply for the City of Broken Hill. Because of the emotion around this issue, a moratorium has been called. We are so close to getting the basin plan committed in full. We have seen the recent purchase of water from Lake Tandou, which will put more water back into the lower basin, more water into South Australia, and give the New South Wales government more ability to reconfigure the Menindee Lakes so that those people who rely on the water at Menindee will have that water in there for longer.
This is a crucial point: the irrigation communities in my electorate have been undergoing this change not just since the Murray-Darling Basin Plan but since the New South Wales government water reforms that were undertaken 15 years prior to that. This has seen major changes. While our honourable friends from Adelaide might be wringing their hands about what they saw on Four Corners, they need to know that they are the last people to run out of water, not the first. The basin that I represent is an ephemeral stream. When it floods we have water and when there is drought we don't. Western Queensland has not had rain for five years and so water has not run into the rivers. This is one of the reasons why there is a shortage at the moment. The water in Menindee now, which I saw flowing down, is part of the 7,000 gigalitres—we're talking about 10 gigalitres in the Barwon-Darling river system—that flows out to sea over the barrages every year. It came from central New South Wales last winter because of an exceptionally wet winter and the flooding in the Lachlan, Bogan, Castlereagh and Macquarie rivers. The idea that this is some sort of constant system and that we can, just by setting policies in this place, turn water on and off is very short-sighted. It's a complex system. Mother nature is completely in control.
We have come to an agreement. We are nearly there—where everyone gets their fair share. Wait and see where the four inquiries that the Four Corners show spawned go. The first of those is due to report back to the New South Wales minister at the end of this month. Wait and see where that goes before we make any knee-jerk reactions to what was seen on a television program two weeks ago.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (11:32): Mr Speaker has received advice informing the House that Senator Chisholm has been discharged from attendance on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and that Senator McCarthy has been appointed a member of that committee.
BILLS
Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposal and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Safe Work Australia Amendment (Role and Functions) Bill 2017
Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017
Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Duty Harmonisation) Bill 2017
Returned from Senate
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
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.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:32): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be honest with you. I ummed and ahed about speaking on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 because there are people on the Labor side of politics who are far more qualified than me. But after hearing a number of the contributions of government members, I thought it was important to put on the record views from my electorate and views from someone whose parents also migrated to this country. All of us have had the privilege of participating in citizenship ceremonies, and most speakers on this bill have mentioned that in their speeches. In Bendigo our citizenship ceremonies cite the second verse of the national anthem, which some people struggle with. The line that always causes people to smile is, 'For those who've come across the seas we've boundless plains to share.' It really reflects the nature of how many people in this country have migrated to this place to make Australia their home and to build their lives. It's something that those opposite choose to ignore at timed that suit them.
My parents, like so many in this place, migrated to Australia. My mum was a 10-pound Pom. She came over on a boat around the same time as the member for Warringah came over. They're about the same age. My dad is a migrant. He came over as a mechanic, also from England, at an age where there was an encouragement for young people with skills to come to this country. We have talked a lot on this side about how they would be affected by these rules today. The truth is, because they came from England, they get a pass. The truth is that they wouldn't have to sit the English test that so many other migrants and permanent residents from this country will have to do. Why their story is relevant is that whilst my mum went on to university since growing up in this country and is a brilliant academic working for Melbourne Uni, and would have no problems passing this test even if she was born in a country other than Australia, my dad is dyslexic. He is a great mechanic, a contributor to this society, but he would have no chance of passing this tougher test if his birth place was not England. That is one of the frustrations and problems that I and so many people on this side of the House have: you get a pass on having to sit the complex English test if you were born in the UK, the US, Canada or New Zealand. It's probably good for the Deputy Prime Minister that that is the case, because many of us have reflected in question time on how incoherent some of his answers are. It's probably good for the Deputy Prime Minister that the laws he is proposing won't reflect his own birth country, or the dual citizenship that he has with New Zealand. I guess it's a bit ironic that we're debating toughening up the citizenship rules on a date that the Deputy Prime Minister of this country can't tell us for sure whether he's a dual citizen or not.
This is the nature of this government—they'll go out there, they'll divide our communities, they'll create wedges, they'll say that you are worthy of Australian citizenship and you are not, without checking their own ranks to clarify whether they satisfy the rules of our constitution. It does make you ponder and question just what they are up to and why they are leading this debate in this way in our country. The citizenship test that the government is proposing, the requirement of English being at university level, seeks to divide those who choose our country to settle.
I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution about the citizenship ceremonies that we have in Bendigo. In the last five years there has been remarkable change in who is becoming Australian citizens and taking the pledge. The Australian Bureau of Statistics just recently released the stats for Bendigo. They really speak for themselves. About 15 per cent of the people recently arrived in Bendigo are from India, 11 per cent are from Myanmar, just under 10 per cent are from Thailand, about 8.3 per cent are from England and just over seven per cent are from the Philippines. That is also reflected in who is becoming Australian citizens and who is taking the pledge at our citizenship ceremonies. Take Myanmar. We are a region which has welcomed Karen refugees, people who were stateless until they became Australian citizens. The first elections they voted in as a people were Australian elections. Many of them grew up in refugee camps. Many of them have moved here and settled here. Their children who go to school here have quite a good grasp of English—and this is such a common story here in this country—but many of them wanting to become Australian citizens still struggle with English. They are attending their TAFE courses, but, as others have said, they get about 500 hours as part of their resettlement services.
Many of them seek to work. They work in food processing, which is big in our part of the world. They work for Moromack's chicken. They work for Hazeldene's Chicken. They work in abattoirs. They work on farms. They are part of our agricultural workforce. They work hard. But this government is saying they shouldn't qualify as Australian citizens, as they wouldn't be able to pass these stringent English tests. I find, as many find, that that is quite a slap in the face, and not what we do in Australia.
A lot of the Indian and Pakistani migrants in Bendigo would pass this test because they came here as skilled migrants. They are our doctors, our nurses and our engineers. They also contribute to our society. But what is so heartbreaking about what the government is putting forward is that it is pitting one group of migrants, permanent residents, against another, and creating a second tier, a second class, within our society, which goes against Australian values and against the commitment in the pledge we make to each other. To say that people in Bendigo who are of Myanmar or Karen birth are lesser people and less worthy of Australian citizenship than those from India and Pakistan is wrong. To say that a dyslexic mechanic who arrives in Australia doesn't even have to sit the test, but a Karen person does, is wrong. That is one of the reasons why we stand opposed to this.
It's disappointing to hear some of the contributions from those opposite, who say that that's just not true—that we're scaremongering. They should read what is being proposed. They should ask migration experts about what is being proposed. They should talk to academics to understand that exactly what their minister is putting forward is to create that second tier.
It is elitist to say you must have a university degree level of English to qualify for Australian citizenship. There are lots of people in central Victoria and Bendigo who don't have that level of qualification; are we saying they are now less of an Australian citizen because they don't have it? Is that the path down which the government wishes to take us? If that's the requirement for people who are migrants wanting to become Australian citizens, who's next? Is it the rest of us? We start to get to a place where the government is suggesting there are two classes of Australian in this country. It is really alarming that this is the direction that this government is going in.
One of the other comments that were made on Thursday afternoon, towards the end of the sitting day, was by my colleague the member for Wakefield, who was talking about how the Snowy Mountains scheme was built by so many migrants of Italian and Greek heritage, who moved to this country and helped build this critical infrastructure, and how we should recognise that contribution: they're Australians, like the rest of us, and should be embraced that way. The member for Hughes was heckling, saying, 'Don't you tell me about the Snowy scheme. My grandfather was involved. He was the commissioner of the project.' I think that kind of statement really sums up the disconnect between those on the government benches and those on this side. Yes, he was a commissioner. That means wealth and education at university level. So the person directing the project can be an Australian citizen, but those who are doing the actual work don't qualify. Is that what they're really suggesting—that level of elitism? That is the crux of what is being proposed, and a way in which the government is creating two classes within our society.
The Values Statement, too, is something where the government is suggesting that people who take the step to become citizens currently don't commit to our values. They do, and anybody who's been to a citizenship ceremony knows that, because of the pledge which people take when they stand on their feet:
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.
This is what they commit to when they stand up in that ceremony. The statements that are read by the immigration minister, by those conducting the ceremony, talk about Australian values. We already require that of people becoming Australian citizens. The theatre that the government and the immigration minister are presenting around this is incredibly misleading to our community. To go out there and suggest that people taking the step to become Australian citizens don't already commit to Australian values is wrong. Australia is this wonderful country of many cultures woven together to make the Australian culture. We say to people when they come here: share your stories, share your culture, enrich and share your values. It's something that has made us who we are today as a modern Australia. Whether you're our First Australians or our most recently arrived migrant Australians, we've all come together to form that rich tapestry of who we are. We should stare down the government and their attempts to divide us and our country in this way.
In Bendigo, we know what happens when people try to use race to divide our town. It was not that long ago that we had people coming into our town and trying to say that our local Bendigo Muslim community could not build a mosque in our town. Our council supported it, the vast majority of our community supported it, but some outsiders came in to say that it was un-Australian. They are wrong. It is very Australian to embrace and share your religion. This government is trying to enforce their view on what it means to be Australian in other ways. In this proposal they've changed the wait period for how long somebody needs to be living in Australia before they can apply for citizenship. A number of people living in Bendigo have been caught up in that proposal: people who moved to Australia to be our doctors and nurses at Bendigo Health, and people who moved to Australia to work at Thales, which manufactures the Bushmaster and the Hawkei. These are people contributing towards our society, and to change the rules on them at this stage of the game is unfair.
Finally, my parents both did become naturalised, like so many people who share a similar story. I was eight at the time, the oldest of three girls. I can remember it quite well, because it was in 1998, a period when Australia really encouraged everybody to take that step, even though, because they came from England, they had voting rights and would one day qualify for the pension. It was a real renewed push in our country to demonstrate how multicultural we were: whilst we might have been born in different countries, we've all come together here to really be Australian, to share our culture and to help build this great nation.
The diversity of people on the stage back then is similar to the diversity of people becoming Australian citizens today. Citizenship is something that we should celebrate. We should be honoured that so many choose our country to settle and to become Australian citizens. We should not allow the minister to bully us and we should not let this issue divide the country, particularly given it is a ministry and a government who can't work out their own citizenships. With so many of them referring themselves to the High Court, you wonder why they continue to set the bar higher for others wanting to become Australian citizens. I urge those opposite to read again and think about again what they've put before the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:49): I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 and to support the proposed amendments put forward by the shadow minister for multicultural affairs, Mr Burke. In so doing, I will make a number of observations to commence with. Since the initial invasion of this country by Europeans, we have been a country of migrants. Apart from the original inhabitants of this place, our First Australians, all of us have come here as a migrant in one form or another. In my own case, some of my antecedents come as convicts, some as free settlers. They were migrants from England, Scotland, Ireland and Germany. That's where they came from. We have had periods of migration, as we well know. The Chinese migration in the late 19th century was particularly important in developing northern Australia.
Then, for whatever reason, this country became entrenched in the view the only reasonable people in the world were whites. So we had the discriminatory migration acts and we had discrimination against anyone who wasn't, effectively, Anglo-Saxon. We discriminated against Aboriginal people in the Constitution, as we know. Nevertheless, we still had this wave of people coming here, and in the post Second World War period, of course, we had people who weren't Anglo-Saxon. We had a large number of people from southern Europe. As a child of the fifties and sixties, I well recall that in the primary school that I went to—just a little Catholic school here in Narrabundah, here in Canberra—many of our kids were from migrant families. Some of them, as others have spoken about, came here to work on the great Snowy River, on the Snowy Mountains project—a great project. Some came as refugees from Hungary. We know that today there was a state funeral for one of those great Australians, who had changed his name to Les Murray.
As a result of looking at this legislation, it's become very clear that, with many of those people on whose shoulders we built our country after the Second World War, had they been asked to pass the tests which are being asked for in this legislation—the English test—many of them would have failed. They wouldn't have been allowed into this country and they wouldn't have been able to become Australian citizens, because of their lack of capacity in the English language. We take great pride in that period of our heritage. We see it as important that we recognise the role of those great post Second World War migrants. We see it as important that in the late seventies we became the home to many refugees who became migrants and became Australian citizens, from South-East Asia and particularly Vietnam. It is important. But, under the rules put in place as a result of this legislation, they would not have been able to become Australian citizens, because of lack of capacity in English. Why is it we're saying that because people—who may be otherwise competent and have great capacity to do the work which they've come here to do it—don't have level 6 English or equivalent, we don't see them as being worthy of citizenship? That to me is dog-whistle politics at its worst.
There's absolutely no reason at all that people from non-English-speaking backgrounds should not be able to come to this country. Obviously they need to acquire functional English to be able to communicate, to work with people in our community. That's readily understood. And we know that there are people who have come here as migrants who have taken some years—in fact, lifetimes—to become proficient in English. There are some migrant mums who came here in the fifties, sixties or seventies and today are still not functional in English. They rely on someone else to interpret for them. Yet they are still worthwhile members of our community, and they and their families have made a significant contribution to this great nation of ours and to fulfilling that great aspiration of ours to be recognised as a multicultural country that welcomes people of all backgrounds.
So sadly, this legislation takes us in a different direction. I'm now going to refer to a bills digest prepared by the Parliamentary Library. It refers to item 41 of the legislation amending the requirement to provide that a person must have competent English. The minister may make a legislative instrument determining both the circumstances in which the person is competent in English and a means by which this may be established. This reverses an earlier easing of the English-language proficiency requirement introduced in 1984, when the requirement was reduced to 'an adequate basis'. It comes down to what is adequate and what is competent. It's very clear under this legislation, and as a result of what Minister Dutton himself has said, that there's been a significant change in relation to the English language requirement. He talks about increasing the IELTS level 6 equivalent to 'at a competent English proficiency level' and said he thinks there would be widespread support for this as well. Well, there's not widespread support for this as well, because it's clearly discriminatory.
The increase from basic competent English is not made along a consistent scale, the bills digest tells us. Basic English is satisfied by successfully completing the citizenship test. That should be enough. Competent English would be satisfied by completing a formal English language test to a specified level. And the level they have proposed is this level 6. Minister Dutton extended this argument in his second reading speech when he said:
English language is essential for economic participation and social cohesion. The Productivity Commission in 2016 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.
No-one denies the need to have some proficiency in English. But what we're being asked to do here is accept the proposition that the new English test for people wanting to become Australian citizens should be at a university level. The bizarreness of that proposition should be obvious to all of us. Why is it that someone who seeks to come to this country, to be a member of our society, should have an equivalent of university-level English, when this has not been the case in the past and when, as I said earlier, previous waves of migrants haven't had to confront this absurdity? It wasn't the case in the period after the Second World War. It certainly wasn't the case in the seventies. Yet now we're being asked to believe that this is an example where we need to do this because of societal cohesion. What nonsense. What absolute nonsense.
The Parliamentary Library has done us a great service by providing in the briefing documents a table that shows the mean IELTS scores for people from a number of different language backgrounds: English, Chinese, Italian, Arabic and Vietnamese. The table states that the scores do not show Australian test results and that it's important to note that approximately 80 per cent of IELTS tests relate to education admission. However, the results imply that a requirement of level 6 will likely have a considerable effect on aspiring citizens from non-English-speaking countries. In particular, the scores for the written component demonstrate that this could be a barrier to citizenship conferral for people who are Chinese speakers, Italian speakers, Arabic speakers and Vietnamese speakers. According to the work that has been done by the Parliamentary Library, all of the people from these countries would find it difficult to pass the written literacy test that is being proposed by the government. How is that fair or reasonable? I ask the Prime Minister why he sees it as being so important that migrants be asked to complete the equivalent of university-level English to come to this country.
With regard to international comparisons, our requirements are far in excess of those of anywhere else in the world. In looking at other national governments that require the equivalent to an IELTS score, we see that Europe requires an IELTS of between 4 and 5, the Netherlands and Spain require an IELTS of approximately 3 and Canada requires an IELTS of 4. Yet we are asking potential Australian citizens to pass this test at IELTS 6. It's not appropriate, it's not fair and it's not reasonable. As one observer has said, it is very likely that we have the most stringent language testing for citizenship in the world.
I'm aware that we have some guests that we need to accord to, but I will just finish my contribution by saying this: it is not reasonable for us to introduce changes to this citizenship legislation which are divisive and discriminatory and which take us back to those dark old days of White Australia. It is simply not reasonable and it should not be done.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Solomon Islands
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (12:03): by leave—I extend my warm welcome and that of the House to the Solomon Islands Prime Minister, the Hon. Manasseh Damukana Sogavare MP.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr TURNBULL: I'm honoured to be able to host him and his wife and his party on his official visit to Australia. We are especially privileged to have him with us in the House today.
The Solomon Islands is one of Australia’s closest neighbours, and we share a strong and enduring friendship. When we met earlier today, Prime Minister Sogavare and I discussed a range of issues including the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands—or RAMSI, as it has been better known. After 14 years, RAMSI officially concluded on 30 June.
Prime Minister Sogavare has been a strong friend and ally during this last phase of RAMSI. He has assisted the smooth drawdown and the transition of security responsibilities to the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force. He has spoken from the heart about needing to reconcile the past, while at the same time looking to the future with optimism and a strong sense of renewal. We value and appreciate his contribution and leadership, acknowledged here in the House today. And we also take a moment to reflect on the history—and recognise the success—of this significant Australian-led initiative, which paved the pathway for future regional cooperation in the south-west Pacific.
RAMSI was a calculated response to a dire situation. From 1998 to 2003, the Solomon Islands was ravaged by lawlessness and violence. Divisions had arisen between the people of its two most populous provinces, who then became embroiled in a destructive cycle of revenge killings. By July 2003 it had become clear that the situation was untenable. Solomon Islands was on the brink of becoming a failed state.
In their hour of need, the Solomon Islands government reached out to Australia. As the House is well aware, intervention in another state is never something to be taken lightly, even upon invitation. But the Howard government understood the need to respond to the Solomon Islands’ request for help and made the momentous decision to deploy the Australian Defence Force, Australian Federal Police and civilian personnel to help the government of the Solomon Islands to take back control of its country.
The deployment of the civilian-led regional policing operation in July 2003 was unprecedented in our Pacific neighbourhood. Fifteen partner countries rallied together to support the Solomon Islands in its hour of need. As the then Chief of the Defence Force, the Governor General, His Excellency Sir Peter Cosgrove ordered the deployment of Defence personnel for the mission. And in June this year, he led Australia’s delegation at the celebrations to mark the end of RAMSI.
The goal of this unique regional initiative was, first and foremost, to re-establish law and order. And it was remarkably successful in achieving this. In RAMSI’s first week, more than 3,700 guns were collected and destroyed. In its third week, the surrender of renegade militants was negotiated with the help of mediators. By the end of its third year, RAMSI had made 6,300 arrests for militant and criminal activity.
RAMSI was also critical in enabling the Solomon Islands government to revive basic functions of state so that life could return to normal for Solomon Islanders. Over the longer term, these revived functions have also provided a foundation from which to build a peaceful, resilient nation, underpinned and secured by democratic institutions.
But as Prime Minister Sogavare observed last night and as we discussed this morning, the foundation of RAMSI’s success was the sense of community and partnership with the people of the Solomon Islands and also, of course, with our Pacific neighbours who participated in the RAMSI mission.
In 2017 we see a very different Solomon Islands. It enjoys what is, by global standards, a very low crime rate. It has a high quality police force that has allowed Solomon Islands to make its own valuable contribution to international peace and security, including to UN peacekeeping missions and training for the police forces of its Pacific neighbours.
Solomon Island markets are bustling. Children are back at school. Medicines are available. And Solomon Islands is reaping the benefits of a relatively stable economy, which grew more than 80 per cent in the first 10 years of RAMSI. It should be no surprise that RAMSI received strong and consistent popular support in the Solomon Islands. From 2006 to 2013, surveys revealed that local support for RAMSI never dropped below 85 per cent.
Today we recognise the efforts of all the Australian government officials, police and Defence personnel, and their Pacific Island counterparts who brought peace and stability to the Solomon Islands. And I extend the gratitude of the Australian people for their commitment and their sacrifice. RAMSI personnel risked life and limb in the line of duty. Some, tragically, made the ultimate sacrifice. Six RAMSI officers lost their lives over its term, including four Australians. Today, in this House, we particularly remember the sacrifice of Private Jamie Clark of the 3rd Royal Australian Regiment of the Australian Defence Force; Adam Dunning, a Protective Service Officer with the Australian Federal Police; Ronald Lewis, also a Protective Service Officer with the Australian Federal Police and Tony Scriva, a civilian adviser to the Solomon Islands government. We remember Chief Inspector Amos Solip of the Vanuatu Police Force and Constable Sisi Puleheloto of the Niue Police Force. These losses we add to the Solomon Islands’ own casualties during the horror of the 'Tensions'.
As we know, the path to peace can be long and complex, and the challenges of addressing internal conflict are intense. So I am pleased to report that, with the assistance of the United Nations Peacebuilding Programme, the Solomon Islands government continues its program of dialogues across the country, aimed at reconciling communities affected by the Tensions. And I wish the Prime Minister good luck with his important anticorruption strategy, and his anticorruption bill, which he plans to put before parliament in the near future.
We stand together with the Solomon Islands government as it looks to the future. Today we signed a bilateral security treaty, which will enable defence, police and civilian personnel to deploy operationally in emergency situations to provide security or humanitarian assistance at the Solomon Islands government’s request.
Australia is providing a post-RAMSI package of capacity building assistance to ensure the maintenance of security and stability. Forty-four unarmed AFP advisers are continuing to mentor, train and advise the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force. And we have commenced a new bilateral program of support for justice and governance. This package will amount to $141 million over the four years from 2017 to 2021.
RAMSI has shown what we can achieve when the member states of the Pacific Islands Forum work together in pursuit of common security goals. The contributing members of RAMSI brought their cultural affinities, their similar experiences and their pooled resources very successfully to this mission. They paved the way for ongoing regional security collaboration across the countries and territories of our shared Pacific Ocean, an objective which I have wholeheartedly committed my government to pursuing.
I warmly thank Prime Minister Sogavare for his ongoing cooperation and leadership and look forward to many years of partnership between our two nations. I present the following document:
Conclusion of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands—Statement by the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Turnbull MP, 14 August 2017.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:11): I thank the Prime Minister for his words, and on behalf of the opposition I extend a very warm welcome to our honoured guests. Prime Minister Sogavare, welcome to Australia. I'm grateful we had the chance to speak earlier today. It's always gratifying to meet an opposition leader who's made it to prime minister.
Today in Canberra we recall the HMAS Canberra, a Royal Australian Navy heavy cruiser, sunk at Ironbottom Sound, Guadalcanal, 75 years ago last week. Eighty-four Australians in her crew, including the captain, were killed as they sought to screen the landing operations of US marines. Prime Minister, the ship named for our capital was lost in battle near yours. And it's no exaggeration to say that in the Second World War Australians and Solomon Islanders changed the course of world history. Seventy-four years ago, in August 1943, a Japanese destroyer rammed and sank a US patrol torpedo boat. The commander and his crew swam to a small island but found no food or water. So the commander and one of his shipmates, already exhausted, swam to a larger island. As they walked along the beach, the two American survivors encountered two Solomon Islander scouts in their canoe, Biuku Gasa and Eroni Kumana, who had been dispatched by an Australian coastwatcher, Warrant Officer Arthur Evans, who had seen the US vessel explode. In desperate need of rescue, the commander carved a message in a coconut for the two men to pass on. It said, 'Native knows position. He can pilot. 11 alive. Need small boat.' Finally, the 26-year-old American lieutenant from Massachusetts carved his name: Kennedy. President John F Kennedy kept that coconut on his desk in the Oval Office. He invited the men, an Australian and two Solomon Islanders, who saved his life, to his inauguration, and later wrote to them as President saying they would always have a special place in his heart.
Seventy-four years ago, Solomon Islanders helped someone in need: in pidgin, they helpim fren. Fourteen years ago, Australians went to do just that. Today we salute the end of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. Fourteen years, 15 partner nations, billions of dollars of investment, tens of thousands of personnel deployed, with one objective above all: to help a friend. And today we also mark a beginning: the beginning of a new chapter for your nation, for our two countries' friendship, and for the security of your people and our region. We're looking forward to new opportunities for a new generation. We honour all those who made it possible. I join with the Prime Minister in remembering the four Australians who died in the course of this long endeavour: Private Jamie Clark, 3RAR; the two Australian protective service officers from the AFP, Adam Dunning and Ronald Lewis; and civilian adviser Tony Scriva. I'm sure that for their families, their comrades and all who knew and loved these men seeing RAMSI in the news again today will perhaps be a little hard. Our hearts go out to them.
One of Australia's greatest foreign ministers, Gareth Evans, once said the essence of the Australian peacekeeper, wherever they went, was 'an admirable willingness and capacity to just get the job done, and to do it irreverently, cheerfully, unshirkingly, and in a way that is intolerant of bulldust in any form and totally instinctively egalitarian'. Australian peacekeepers aren't just respected by those whom they serve alongside for their courage, professionalism and skill; they're also held in genuine affection by the communities in which they serve. There is a quality of cheerful openness that comes to the fore when dealing with Australian peacekeepers in the execution of their mission: no stuffiness, no stiffness, no standing on ceremony, but, indeed, a genuine engagement with the country and the people and a sense of egalitarian respect that all builds a spirit of partnership and cooperation. That sense of shared endeavour of working together, peacekeepers and people, was so central to the success of RAMSI.
In 2003, after five years of escalating aggression and conflict between ethnic groups, which is described as 'the tensions', the Solomons was as close to becoming a failed state as possible. Gun crime was out of control and law and order had broken down, with almost nothing being done to prevent crime, or prosecute or punish offenders. In the words of RAMSI's final special coordinator, Quinton Devlin:
… state institutions were simply not functioning or operating at the barest minimum level.
The prison officers, for example, had opened the doors of the jail and walked away. So, while citizens lived in fear for their safety, corruption, extortion and bribery had bankrupted the nation. In less than five years, the GDP had almost halved.
To the great credit of Prime Minister John Howard and his government, Australia acted. Australia showed genuine regional and global leadership, with 14 nations joining the RAMSI task force. Undoubtedly, there were rough edges and early concerns at the commencement of RAMSI. But RAMSI endured and prevailed, smoothing those rough edges and answering those questions. Under successive governments on both sides, Australia and RAMSI partner nations disarmed the militia, destroyed thousands of illegal weapons, arrested hundreds of criminals and brought corrupt officials to justice. But we also built the infrastructure of peace and progress. We brought back development agencies, banks and investors who had walked away. We opened the way for truth and reconciliation. Hand in hand, we helped our friends restore integrity to the institutions of a democratic state, from the parliament to the justice system and to the public service. Just as importantly, we rebuilt trust and confidence in those institutions so the people didn't feel that the law could only be enforced by taking it into their own hands.
Restoring order is also about restoring normality so families can go to work, shop in the market, spend quality time with their families and friends, worship in peace, play and watch sport. It's a story that Prime Minister Sogavare told me earlier when I asked him whether soccer or futsal was more popular. He was pleased to inform me that Elliot Ragomo, who is the captain of the Solomon Islands' national futsal team, is now a hero to a generation of fans. Indeed, the Brazilian club Minas Tenis is currently processing his international transfer, which makes him the first citizen of any other nation to play in the Brazilian professional futsal league. He is, I suggest, a symbol of a nation re-emerging: confident, unified and ready for the world stage, and ready for a more prosperous future with quality investment, extending beyond the sounds of chainsaws and logging.
Even when military operations wound down in 2013, Australia and RAMSI nations continued to provide training, advice and assistance for a new civil society. It's a measure of the way RAMSI went about its work that it maintained the consistent support and affection of Solomon Islanders. It is now regarded around the world as the global standard for a successful international intervention. RAMSI demonstrated what Australian leadership can achieve in the region as a responsible, outward-looking and engaged middle power. In our region, all 15 partner nations showed what we can achieve when we work together. The men and women who have made up the Australian contingent over the past 14 years—our military personnel, our police and our civilian governance and program experts—have fulfilled the very best traditions of Australian peacekeeping and humanitarian and nation-building effort, and they have rightly earned the thanks of two grateful nations.
A month from now, on 14 September, the Governor-General will dedicate a new memorial on Anzac Avenue. That day marks the 70th anniversary of Australia's first peacekeeping mission—the Chifley government's decision to support the Indonesian people against the Dutch colonial power. Since then, over 50,000 Australians have contributed to more than 60 United Nations and multilateral operations—from Kashmir to the Middle East, from Siberia to Sudan and from Cambodia to Timor-Leste. Through seven decades of uncertainty and threats Australians have answered the call for help and served the cause of peace as readily and successfully as any nation in the world. As the former commander of an international force, it's fitting that General Cosgrove dedicates this new tribute to the service and sacrifice of Australians who fought to prevent war, and who knew that true peace was not the absence of tension but the presence of justice. That memorial will stand on Anzac Avenue, reflecting the equal place of honour that our peacekeepers deserve in our history and our commemorations. But the true memorial to Australia's peacekeepers is not found in the soil, and it's not carved in marble or marked on a monument. The most eloquent and enduring tribute to our peacekeepers is the kids in Honiara going to school—some of the children are actually named Ramsi in tribute. It is families safe in their homes at night no longer listening fearfully for gunfire. It's a new, restored police force facing the hard test of protecting the community and serving justice. It's a strong and functioning democracy representing its citizens.
Prime Minister Sogavare, the memorial to our peacekeepers and their endeavours is in the hands of your people. It's in the future your nation chooses to make for itself—the society you are building, and the opportunities you are extending to the next generation. Australia's message today to your honoured delegation, as our partners and our friends, is to honour the men and women of RAMSI by remembering their example, and for all of us to live up to it. So, in the words of your national anthem, in a spirit of 'joy, peace, progress and prosperity', let us all 'brothers be', from 'shore to shore'.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (12:22): I move:
That the House take note of the document.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (12:23): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Qualifications of Members
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (12:24): by leave—I move:
That pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the House of Representatives refer the following questions to the Court of Disputed Returns—
(a) whether, by reason of s44(i) of the Constitution, the place of the Member for New England (Mr Joyce) has become vacant;
(b) if the answer to Question (a) is “yes”, by what means and in what manner that vacancy should be filled;
(c) what directions and other orders, if any, the Court should make in order to hear and finally dispose of this reference; and
(d) what, if any, orders should be made as to the costs of these proceedings.
This is the first time that the House of Representatives has been asked to move such a motion to resolve a matter of the status of one of its members, so in fact we are making history here today in the House of Representatives.
The government remains absolutely confident that the Deputy Prime Minister is not disqualified under section 44(i) of the Constitution. It is the Deputy Prime Minister who has asked for this matter to be referred to the High Court in order to determine his status, his position here in the parliament. He has done that for two reasons in particular. The first is that we have reached the stage where it is necessary for the High Court to determine what section 44(i) means in the modern era for the Australian parliament. There have been many different references and actions taken, over many years, in the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, but clearly—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I won't be tolerating any interjections on this matter.
Mr PYNE: It would be quite unwise for some members on the other side of the House to be interjecting on this matter.
It is time for the High Court to be given the opportunity to make a determination about what section 44(i) of the Constitution means in the modern era. Just to give an example, as the Deputy Prime Minister said when he made his remarks at 10 o'clock, there was no such thing as Australian citizenship before 1948. Everyone before 1948 was a British subject. Does that mean that every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate before 1948 bore an allegiance to another foreign power, in that case the United Kingdom? These are things that have become very important in the modern era, and it's time the High Court gave us a very clear ruling about what section 44(i) of the Constitution means.
Of course, the second reason the Deputy Prime Minister has asked for this referral to occur is that the government has acted ethically in all these matters. As soon as it came to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister that this might be an issue, he acted entirely ethically and correctly, as you would expect him to do as a person of upstanding character. When he was informed by the New Zealand High Commission, he took immediate action. The government has had very clear legal advice from the Solicitor-General that the Deputy Prime Minister is not disqualified under section 44(i) of the Constitution, but we wish to test that in the High Court to give them the opportunity to determine that. Because we are so confident of the Deputy Prime Minister's status, he will continue to participate fully in the House as the member for New England and he will continue as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for giving leave for this motion to come forward and I commend the motion to the House.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:27): The Opposition will be supporting this motion. The Leader of the House is right when he says we're making history, but we're making history for a slightly different reason to what the Leader of the House just said. This is the first time in the history of this parliament that a government has asked the High Court to determine whether in fact it has a majority. That's what's being resolved here. This is a government reliant on a majority of one—a majority of one that has made real differences in terms of outcomes. A majority of one was the reason we didn't get a vote for a banking royal commission over the line. It was a majority of one that determined that hundreds of thousands of Australians would get a pay cut on 1 July. A majority of one makes a difference to which side of the chamber the members sit on, who's in government and who's in opposition, and which laws are passed and which laws are not. And what the House is doing right now is saying to the High Court, 'We're not actually sure if the government does have a majority of one.' It is saying to the High Court of Australia that we have been here for 12 months making laws with a government that may or may not be legitimate, with a parliament that may or may not be voting according to the Constitution of this country. The motion that is before the House right now is groundbreaking because the government itself has had to come to this chamber and acknowledge that it doesn't know whether or not this is a majority government. It doesn't know whether or not this is a legitimate government. That's the question that's before the House right now.
And let's not pretend about the reason the Deputy Prime Minister came in this morning at the first available opportunity to make his statement to the House. You've only got to go online to Fairfax to see the article where Adam Gartrell and Amy Remeikis have said the Deputy Prime Minister 'has referred himself to the High Court following questions from Fairfax Media about whether the Deputy Prime Minister could be a dual citizen of New Zealand and ineligible for parliament'. The speech we were given this morning wasn't because of an immediate new piece of information or crisis of conscience from the Deputy Prime Minister. It was because he had been found out anyway. That's why this has happened today. And that's why today we are entering new ground where every day now we will not know whether or not this is a majority government, every day now we won't know whether, for 12 months, this government has been operating without a majority, whether for 12 months this government has been getting laws through this parliament, changing the lives of Australians, often for the worse, and doing so without a majority in terms of the Constitution of the country.
But even if you were to go to the low standards that this government chooses to set for itself, it's even decided that the standards it's set aren't low enough—because how different is this to the treatment that was given to Senator Canavan? The argument from Senator Canavan was:
… given the uncertainty around this matter, I will stand aside until the matter is finally resolved and resign as the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. I have informed the Prime Minister of that course of action.
But we're not getting a deputy prime minister standing aside. We're not getting a deputy prime minister who actually was the person who got that resources job added to his portfolio as a result of that decision. Now that he's got the job, he's wanting to hang on to it and won't let his fingernails claw away. He's making sure that he won't loosen his grip on the extra power that he's been given following Senator Canavan making that decision.
And so what the House is deciding today is acknowledging that we don't know whether this parliament currently has a member for New England under the Australian Constitution. We don't know whether this government has a deputy prime minister eligible under the Australian Constitution. And we don't even know whether we have a majority government in this country. This is a phenomenal change and level of instability that this government have. We knew there was instability within their party room; now we know there's instability here on the floor of the parliament itself.
I say to those opposite: never during the period of the hung parliament was there a question as to whether somebody had been elected under the Constitution, and yet the Leader of the House kept pointing to people who had been elected and saying, 'Don't accept their vote.' I say to the Leader of the House: with this resolution that's in front of the chamber right now, how on earth can you accept the vote of the Deputy Prime Minister? How can he be the Deputy Prime Minister when the standard was set by the former minister for resources that you should stand aside if there's uncertainty? If there is no uncertainty, why are on earth are we referring the matter to the High Court? We could only be referring the matter because there's uncertainty, because we don't know. If you don't know, how on earth can you rely on that vote? How on earth can this parliament be claiming to have a majority government, relying on the vote of someone for whom they don't know whether or not he's been lawfully elected? How on earth can this government have somebody in the office of the Deputy Prime Minister when they don't even know if he's meant to be a member of parliament?
And if the former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia was able to stand aside, even though he had the Attorney-General beside him, claiming that he had a strong case, then why on earth is 'a strong case' the defence for the Deputy Prime Minister? How on earth does that work? It cannot be the case that the words of the Attorney-General in defending Senator Canavan and why he wouldn't resign from parliament were correct, because he apparently had a strong case and yet stood aside. But if it's the Deputy Prime Minister, the person who is the architect of the coalition agreement, that secret deal, with the Prime Minister on which the fate of this government hangs, in that situation the rules all change.
People will look at this parliament and see a level of chaos that has not been seen for generations. We have never before in this parliament—in this room or when we were down at Old Parliament House or, for that matter, when we were meeting in the exhibition centre in Melbourne—had to go to the High Court and say, 'Look, we're really not sure if there's a majority government in this country.' But that's what the parliament's resolving right now. There is nothing routine about this. And if there was any level of principle on those opposite then two things would happen: (1) the Deputy Prime Minister would stand aside and (2) they would not accept his vote.
I appreciate that with respect to the other member who's at the table right now—there's a High Court case running at the moment—his view is that it shouldn't have been referred to the court, that it's others who've referred it to the court, so he's going to keep on voting, as members may have done in the past. But this is a Deputy Prime Minister who stood up and said that there is enough uncertainty that we need to refer it to the High Court. This is a Deputy Prime Minister who himself opened parliament today saying that he's not sure whether he's validly elected. That's why it's being referred to the High Court. You don't refer something to the High Court because you think there's no doubt; you refer something to the High Court because you just don't know. And if you just don't know, you should not be Deputy Prime Minister of Australia right now. If you just don't know, we should not be relying on your vote, and we should not have a situation where penalty rates were cut off the back of your vote, where we don't have a banking royal commission on the back of your vote.
This was always a government that claimed to have a strong working majority and had a problem getting everyone to turn up for work. But as of today, that majority government is in question. And those opposite will either deal with it responsibly or just do what we've seen the Prime Minister do—do and say anything to try to cling to power. It's being referred to the High Court because we don't know. And if we don't know, two things should happen: the Deputy Prime Minister should stand aside, and he should not exercise a vote in this House until the matter's resolved by the High Court.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Report
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (12:37): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's report entitled Referrals made March 2017 (6th report of 2017).
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr BUCHHOLZ: by leave—Contained in this report are two referrals from March 2017. The first project is LAND 155. It's an enhanced gap crossing capability facilities project. The project proposes to construct facilities to store new portable bridges for the Australian Army. Construction is proposed to take place in both Wallangarra and Lavarack barracks in Queensland, Robertson Barracks in the Northern Territory and the Liverpool Military Area in New South Wales. The scope of the work includes shelters and hard stands to house the portable bridges and associated vehicles. The project cost is estimated at around $23.4 million.
The second project is the HMAS Moreton unit relocation project. The project is proposed to take place on the site of the former Bulimba Barracks in the Brisbane suburb of Bulimba. The scope includes the demolition of existing buildings, the construction of a new gatehouse, the replacement of two conference facilities and the construction of a range of other facilities and infrastructure. The project is necessary to maintain the current capabilities following the disposal of the majority of the former Bulimba Barracks.
The view of the local communities, particularly those living near the government facilities and Defence base, are very important and are an enormous part of the committee's scrutiny processes. For the HMAS Moreton inquiry, the committee took the decision to travel to Brisbane to talk with local residents and their elected representatives about the prospects and the outcome of the project. This hearing presented a valuable opportunity for local residents to have their say on the proposed works. The views of local residents of the community on the impacts of the project are an important part of the committee's scrutiny process. The committee recommends that these two projects proceed, and I commend these projects and this report to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): I thank the member for Wright for his report.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (12:40): by leave—I want to record my thanks to the committee for travelling to Brisbane to hold the hearing, and to convey the thanks of the local community for the committee having done that.
BILLS
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 MARLES (Corio) (12:40): I rise to speak against the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill. There is hardly a more important regime of legislation that is contemplated by this place than that which makes us Australian in the first place—and that's, obviously, what our citizenship legislation does. It goes to our very sense of being a nation; it goes to our very identity as a people. It's absolutely certain that we should not be conferring citizenship upon people lightly. To become a citizen of our country is an enormous step for individuals to take, and it's to be noted that, as the law currently stands, there is no sense in which citizenship is conferred in a light way. It is a solemn, important, significant step, as anyone who has gone through it knows very well.
It's also a factor in conferring citizenship on people that we do have an eye to questions of national security and questions of character. It's absolutely critical that we are considering those matters, and, right now, as our legislative regime stands, that is exactly what occurs. But the way in which we ultimately confer our citizenship also reflects upon us as a people, and that legislative regime ought not be tampered with lightly. It has been developed over a long period of time, it is very solemn in its nature, and it shouldn't become the basis upon which people, within the context of a contemporary debate, pursue partisan politics—because this, as much as any other piece of legislation, ought to be above partisan politics.
Australia is a country which has a very high proportion of our population who were born outside our shores. Something like one in four Australians meet that criteria, and that makes us second only to Israel in the world in terms of countries which have such a large proportion of their population born beyond their shores. It means that the very question of how we confer citizenship is as critical to our national story as it is to any country on the planet. It is absolutely fundamental to the way in which we go about our existence as a nation. It also means that there are many people who are in this country right now as permanent residents—those who are not citizens but are here as permanent residents.
In terms of how our citizenship laws operate, permanent residency is the step prior to becoming a citizen. Permanent residency is not a visa or a status which is accorded lightly either. It is done, very much, with an eye to questions of security and character. And, indeed, there are many celebrated cases where people, by virtue of perhaps criminal behaviour or other behaviour, fail the character test that applies to any person holding a visa within this country, including people who are here as permanent residents. In those circumstances, it can, ultimately, lead to people being evicted or removed from our country.
The tests around being granted permanent residency are very significant. These are the tests which apply before we even start talking about whether or not we accord someone citizenship within our country. So there is a robust system in place as it stands. But it is also the case that, given how many people live in this country as permanent residents, we ought to be encouraging those people to take the step of pledging themselves to our nation and becoming Australian citizens. That is a step which we should be encouraging people to take, not doing the opposite. As I said, going back to the very question of the nature of the Australian project—one in four of us was born outside of our shores—means that it's absolutely essential that the way in which our legislative regime around citizenship is constructed is such that it encourages people to take citizenship and not the reverse. It's for these reasons that I oppose the bill before the House today.
In so many respects, this bill actually stands against the very proposition that we ought to be advancing as a nation, and it does so in two particularly egregious ways. The first is in respect of the requirement which increases the requirement around residence and permanent residence in Australia prior to being able to become a citizen. What this bill will do is make it a requirement that you have been a permanent resident in the country for four years before you can take out citizenship. Right now, there is a four-year residency requirement, but not necessarily as a permanent resident. The rule which applies to the period of time that needs to be served as a permanent resident is 12 months. This extension of the residence requirement is in fact a significant hurdle that many people, particularly those who may travel, will struggle to overcome, and it may indeed see people spinning out the time in which they would be able to acquire citizenship for a very long period indeed, if indeed they are not in a position to be spending four continuous years as a permanent resident in this country prior to being able to take out their citizenship.
This has an impact on the way in which we present to the world and on the way in which those who live in this country as permanent residents continue to maintain their life in Australia. For example, this may well become a disincentive for students who choose to study in Australia and who may see themselves ultimately becoming a permanent resident and then a citizen of Australia—that's a well known pathway to citizenship—to study in Australia if that pathway is nowhere near as clear, which this residency requirement would have the effect of making it. There are many who come here as temporary skilled migrants who, ultimately, become permanent residents. This is a well-worn pathway to them becoming a citizen. This may well be a requirement which gets in the way of that pathway and again makes it hard for people in those circumstances to ultimately become an Australian. Having people make the commitment, pledging themselves to our nation and becoming an Australian citizen is something that we should be encouraging. This provision will make it far more difficult.
But perhaps an even more egregious proposition which is contained in the bill goes to the question of the English language test. At the moment, there are a number of visas that operate that have English language proficiency as a requirement for gaining those visas, and that's appropriate, particularly if people are at work and need to be performing operations in an environment where they understand language and understand instructions. But, by and large, the adult migrant English programs which go to the question of the English level proficiencies associated with those visas pitch that level at IELTS level 4 or 5, which describes a proficient level of English. What is being proposed in this legislation is that, prior to taking out citizenship, people would need to demonstrate competent English—in other words, IELTS level 6 English. So that people understand what that level is, we're talking about university-level English in order to obtain citizenship in this country.
That is patently absurd, and it portrays a real prejudice on the part of the government about how they see not only those seeking citizenship in our country but, indeed, the country as a whole—that what ought to define whether or not you're Australian enough is whether you have a university-level understanding of English. It is completely inappropriate that that be the basis upon which one becomes a citizen of this country. You can look at a whole range of Australians who were born outside our country, who have gone through the process of citizenship, who have gained their citizenship and who have made a huge contribution to our country who would not have passed this English language level. Indeed, for many older people, it's a struggle to learn to speak English, as it is for those who come here as dependants of primary visa holders, who perhaps spend more time at home and do not engage with the public as much. There may be a whole group of people who will never gain English proficiency at the competent level, at the university standard, such that there would be a whole range of people in this country who are here as permanent residents but will never be able to take out citizenship because they can't meet this standard or qualification.
How on earth does that make sense in a country where one in four of our population are born outside of our shores? How on earth does that make sense in terms of promoting national security within our country? The adult migrant English programs that I just described provide for 510 hours of teaching. No-one out there is suggesting that that is enough to attain a university-level quality of English, yet that is what we're talking about as the barrier now for people becoming Australian. It says everything about how this government views what it is to be Australian. It is discriminatory, it is unreasonable and it is unjust, and it is for those reasons that I and those on this side of the House will be opposing this bill as an appalling proposition to put before this House.
We understand national security considerations, and there's no question about the degree to which the opposition have been willing to work with the government on a whole raft of national security pieces of legislation. Indeed, holding the portfolio responsible for citizenship in the last parliament on behalf of the Labor Party I cooperated with two ministers for immigration in respect of a range of national security legislation which would tighten up our national security framework. There is absolutely a unity ticket when it comes to that. But, when we walk down the path of national security legislation, the very first question that we ask, as I'm sure the government ask in their private moments as well, is: what do our national security agencies advise us in terms of what they need from this chamber and from this parliament in respect of laws to help make us safe? It's an obvious question and it's a question we should be asking in respect of this bill as well. Is there any suggestion, any suggestion at all, that national security agencies in this country have advised that, as a matter of keeping Australians safe, we need to set the English language test at university standard for people who are currently living here and have a right to live here for the rest of their lives as permanent residents to make a pledge to our country and become citizens? Surely a barrier that prevents them making that pledge, which runs the very real risk of alienating them, actually flies in the face of national security. Surely that raises the proposition that we might be alienating a whole lot of people whose incorporation into our nation, into our citizenry, is a critical component of keeping us safe and building a culture of national security within this country. So the idea that there is a national security dimension to what is going on here is complete bunkum.
The government well knows that when it needs support on national security measures it has a partner in the opposition. We give that support, obviously, with our eyes open and looking at all the dimensions of it, but we do it without hesitation. But that's not what we have here. What we have here is a piece of legislation which really strikes at the very heart of our national identity, the very heart of what it means to be an Australian. It will act in a very discriminatory way and will work against the modern Australian project of a country where one in four of our population are born outside our shores. It does nothing to provide empathy in the process to become an Australian citizen. It actually works against people making a pledge to our country. I cannot see how on earth that could be good law.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (12:55): I rise today to speak on a bill the consequences of which I can barely fathom. It is a bill that says so much about the type of government Malcolm Turnbull leads: a government that will go to any lengths, and introduce any manner of ministerial restructure or legislation, in an attempt to appease the far right of the Liberal Party, and a Prime Minister that will do anything to keep his job.
Without any regard to the consequences for individuals and families, for the future success of the Australian migration program, for the cohesive social fabric of the nation, this government has brought into the parliament the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It is this sad piece of work that I speak on today. Much has been said about this bill. I spent a wintry Saturday afternoon reading through all the speeches that have been made on this bill so far. There have been a great deal more speakers from the Labor opposition than from the Liberal-National government that has brought this bill forward. Those opposite in the government spend an awful lot of time telling us all about their commitment to strengthening the requirements for Australian citizenship and about what Australian citizenship means to them, but they fail to go on the record in this place in regard to this abysmal bill. Sure, some have; but given the number of backbenchers on the Liberal side, it does strike me as odd that there are not more of you standing up for this legislation.
We all know why you aren't speaking on this bill: you don't like it. You know there isn't any evidence supporting this legislation from any government departments, let alone national security agencies. The other side know as well as we do that this is a shocker and an affront to a great multicultural nation, a country whose prosperity has been built on the labour, intellect, perseverance, hard work and contributions of new citizens and Australian-born children of migrants. But what Duts wants, Duts gets—sorry, what the member for Dickson wants, the member for Dickson gets. How many of those opposite are counting the days and dreading the day when the member for Dickson challenges the Prime Minister for the leadership? At last, at that time, to quote an epic movie, your journey to the dark side will be complete.
My colleagues have set out very eloquently over the past few parliamentary sitting days the appalling troubles with the bill and the reasons why it should never have been brought to this parliament and why no-one in here and the other place should support it. I won't go through all the reasons to reject the bill, but I support the words of my Labor colleagues in this regard. Each of my colleagues has brought to this debate their personal experiences, that of their families, their expertise from lives before entering the place. I thank each of them for sharing some very emotional moments with the parliament and the public. Citizenship is an emotional thing. We only have to observe the tears of joy and the broad smiles at the citizenship ceremonies that we all attend right across this country. From this we know what obtaining Australian citizenship means to people and, in the obverse, what it means when you take the opportunity for Australian citizenship away.
A person living in my electorate of Brand in Western Australia has been moved to get in touch with me about this sudden new policy of this moribund government. Her name is Rachel Lemon. Rachel did not vote for me—she cannot vote for me or anyone else, because she cannot participate in our democracy as we encourage all adults to do. Sadly, she and her family will now not be able to participate for some time yet because of this bill. Rachel, her husband and four daughters packed up their life in the UK and moved to Baldivis in Brand, in WA. They arrived in July 2003 with dreams of making Western Australia their forever home. Rachel's husband, as she put it, was invited by Kleenheat Gas, part of Wesfarmers group, to fill a position as a temporary skilled visa holder. They sold their family house in Britain, packed up their lives and belongings, said goodbye to families and friends and started the courageous journey to start a new life in a new place in Baldivis. When they arrived, the rules changed unexpectedly and now they are required to pay school fees in full, something they had not anticipated when making the move to Australia—nonetheless, they stuck with us. In August 2016, not that long ago, the permanent residency application of Rachael and her family was approved.
They had lived, worked, integrated and contributed to the growing community of Baldivis for three years. As Rachael put it to me: 'Feeling relieved and more secure in our future here, we invested in building our first family home, which is still in its construction stage. We are finally building a secure life here, or so we thought.' Overnight Malcolm Turnbull and the Australian government want to change the requirements for citizenship from one year to four years as a permanent resident. Incredibly, they decided the rule change starts immediately, as he announced it even before it became law.'
I continue in Rachael's words:
We are perplexed as to how an additional four years in addition to the years already spent here can make any difference to how we assimilate to life in Australia. We are already a part of this community. We have worked hard to try to make it better. What difference does it make what type of visa we had while living, working, paying taxes and volunteering here? We love living in Australia, and Baldivis is where we chose to settle almost four years ago. My husband works hard at the company that sponsored us to come here in the first place. Our daughters all attend the local public schools and are in years 2, 5, 11 and 12. I'm an elected board member of Rivergums Primary School, the school that our younger daughters attend. I put myself forward as I want to be proactive within the community and hope my children will see me making a positive contribution and consequently aim to do the same. I also work teaching art to children and adults of our local community. I utilise the local community centres and school by leasing space to provide fun and educational activities. Is this not assimilating into the local community?
But it's getting worse with more hurdles being thrown our way to living and building a life for our children here. The Australian government have also announced university fee reforms for permanent residents. These reforms see permanent residents paying full international student fees instead of the reduced rate for Commonwealth students. Students could pay around $36,000 per year instead of the current $9,000.
Rachael's eldest daughter is studying year 12 this year and hopes to go to the University of Western Australia next year, but this sudden change of policy has put the family in turmoil as now they have to find $36,000 per year in fees and right when they are building a new family home. They quite rightly ask where will they find this money. As Rachael says, 'I really don't understand the short-sightedness of these reforms.' Well, neither do I, Rachael, neither do I.
The words Rachael wrote to me, very eloquent words, were of her story and that of her family, but it is one of the many such stories across my home town of Rockingham, Kwinana and Baldivis, across the state of Western Australia and across the whole country. So many people and families made plans to make Australia part of their bright future and, in so doing, make Australia's future brighter. These people have been betrayed by this government. They've had the mat pulled out from under their feet. They've had the goalposts moved so dramatically that they know not what to do. They doubt the decision we asked them to make—to move to this great country and help us grow. Rachael and her family, and many like them, left a life behind.
While I was reading the speeches on this bill, my husband, Jamie, was reading an article, and he read some of it out to me. It goes:
Everyone who comes to Australia gives up something. Some more than others. What they don’t tell you is that cultures evolve and leave you behind: in diaspora, you’re holding on to an image that is outdated and out of sync with the place you have left. When you leave you stop belonging, and if you are not accepted in your new home you are not accepted anywhere.
This reflection reminded us both, immediately, of my late father who migrated to Australia and left England behind. He would sometimes express sadness for an England that only existed in his memory and that had moved on without him, just as he had moved on without England. The reflection I quoted are those of my colleague and migrant to Australia Senator Dastyari. They are an important insight into the migrant experience, and it is an experience shared by migrates from Iran, from England and from everywhere.
If the government persists with these changes to citizenship laws that put more barriers in the way of migrants, that make it more difficult for new Australians to swear their commitment to this country and become Australian citizens, that delay by many years when people can become Australian citizens—if the government persists with this meanness, people like Rachael and her family will find that they are not accepted anywhere. They cannot get back the life they gave up to come here. They will not be accepted here, and they will not be made welcome. This is not Australia, and this is not who we are. The bill should be condemned.
This government maintains its support for our extensive migration intake. This government is not closing the doors to migrants. But what it is doing is its level best to ensure migrants—skilled, resourceful and productive migrants seeking some small piece of our freedoms and democracy—do not darken the door of Australia's immigration program. This legislation can only serve to discourage migrants from choosing Australia in what is a globally competitive market for the best and brightest people. The 45th President of the United States had a point when he said to the Prime Minister, 'You're worse than I am.'
Speaking of values, this government is seeking to test people with questions about Australian values, as if Australian values were not basically values of human decency that, for the most part, most people around the world live by. Who decides what the Australian values of this government are? Perhaps a postal survey would help! Many people coming here to Australia are trying to leave places where free speech doesn't exist and where democracy doesn't flourish. These people have shown a great deal more commitment to and desire to live these values than any of us, so who are we, and how dare we legislate, to delay any further the opportunity for these people to state their commitment to this country and participate in the democratic freedoms they have made such sacrifices and effort to participate in.
I have a confession: I don't like Vegemite. I really don't. I prefer Promite. I enjoy Promite on my toast. There you have it! Some of my friends tell me that for this, I am un-Australian. They say this in jest—I hope!—but I wonder if, in any absence of any information from the government on this notion of integration into Australia, maybe there'll be some assessment as to what extent a migrant enjoys Vegemite. Heaven help them—I hate the stuff! My colleague, the member for Isaacs, is also wondering how someone might demonstrate their integration into this nation. Can they cook a barbie? Can they withstand five days of Test cricket? Can new Australians withstand the overcooked lamb roasts and boiled vegetables we were subject to before migrant cuisines broadened our culinary horizons? This is truly ridiculous.
In bringing this legislation to the parliament, I think the government has forgotten what a compliment migration is to a nation. When migrants choose this liberal democracy over others, we know we are onto a good thing. I commend to my parliamentary colleagues a book by respected Australian journalist and writer George Megalogenis, Australia's Second Chance. In it, he makes the evidentiary case for the proposition that this country has been at its most successful when immigration is strong, and we experience division and poor economic performance when it is not.
There is stiff international competition for migration. The origin of Australia's overseas population is greater now from Asia than from anywhere else. In the US, the greatest percentage of their overseas-born population is from Latin America. These facts reflect our respective geographies. The languages of Australia are English and Asian languages. The US speaks English and Spanish. Economic power has shifted to Asia. Our geography, our Asian migrant future and our Asian migrant heritage mean we have an important advantage over our principal competitor, the US. The comparative advantages we must be live to are our location in Asia and our people with strong links to Asia. This is where our future and prosperity lies.
But this new citizenship regime puts barriers in the way of citizenship that, for some, will provide no pathway at all for Australian citizenship. This regime proposed by this government put our advantages, and, therefore, our prosperity at risk by saying to all: 'We really don't want you to come to Australia and make it your home. We will put every barrier we can find in your way.' Megalogenis puts it best when he says:
If the economy remains strong, migrants will come. But if they do not feel welcome, they won't, and the economy and society will count the cost of their absence in lost demand and output, and a diminution of national creativity and energy.
We've been here before. This country has introduced policies before that encouraged a decline in migration and served only to accelerate economic downturns and social division. At this critical point of global change and development, I urge this parliament to resist introducing laws that will ultimately discourage migration, that make people unwelcome in this country, that are not globally minded, and that threaten our economic growth, harmony and prosperity. I condemn this bill and I urge the parliament to reject it outright.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:09): by leave—I move:
That leave of absence from 14 August 2017 until 17 August 2017 be given to Mr O'Connor, for personal reasons.
Members are already aware of the circumstances of the member for Gorton, and the thoughts of all members of the House are with Brendan and Jodi at a difficult time.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
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 WILKIE (Denison) (13:11): I commend the restraint shown by some of the speakers who have spoken before me on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. Forgive me if I can't feel quite so restrained, because I see this for what it is: a political fix and nothing more. This is a move by a government that is under great pressure politically. It has now been behind for I think 17 Newspolls in a row. It's in dire straits. What does a government do when it's in dire straits? What does a government do when it can't win the debate on big ideas? It drags out the flag and plays to the fault lines in our community: xenophobia, racism and insecurity. When in doubt, pull out some more flags. It became a bit of a joke how many flags former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his ministers would have behind them at different announcements, particularly when it came to national security, and we all breathed a sigh of relief and thought, 'At least there'll be fewer flags behind the Prime Minister now we have a new Prime Minister,' but it seems there's a race to see who can have the most flags behind them. The fact is that this is a political fix. It is a means of trying to turn the government's fortunes around by turning the attention to patriotism, to nationalism and to national security.
The other day the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection said:
This bill reinforces the integrity of our citizenship program. This will help maintain strong public support for migration and the value of Australian citizenship in what is an increasingly challenging national security environment and complex global security situation.
What complete and utter nonsense! What on earth is this bill going to do for our national security? If anything, it's going to diminish our national security, because it is saying to people who are already in our community, our towns and our streets: 'You know what? We thought you were, but we've now decided you're not good enough to become one of us.' Sure, pandering to racism, to xenophobia and to insecurity in the community might pull back a few votes from people who have drifted off to One Nation and the Australian Conservatives, but it will do nothing to foster cohesion in this community, it will do nothing to foster our wonderful multiculturalism in this nation and it will do nothing to make us safer. It will make us less safe. That's the bottom line here.
This flies in the face of all of the evidence of how successful our form of multiculturalism and our approach to multiculturalism have been in the past. It is a fact that we are one of the richest, most successful and most stable multicultural communities to be found anywhere on this planet, so why on earth are we going to tamper with it via some politically motivated changes to our citizenship and other arrangements? It beggars belief. Why would we do that? Why would we turn around and say, 'Actually, to all the people who have come to this country over the years who perhaps couldn't speak the best English or write the best essay, we've now decided, by today's standards, that you wouldn't make a good Australian and we wouldn't allow you to be an Australian'? In fact, this is an attack on multiculturalism. What's wrong with the fact that someone who lives next door mightn't speak the best English, isn't able to write the best essay or hasn't been here for countless years? Does it matter? Of course it doesn't matter.
In fact, can I just reflect, for a moment, on some neighbours that I had when I was living in Sydney some years ago. They were a beautiful Italian family. The mum and the dad were very, very old. I suspect they were probably in their late 70s or 80s by the time I was living next to them, and they could barely speak a word of English. They had come out to our wonderful country with that exodus of refugees from Europe after the Second World War. They helped build this country, they helped build Sydney, they held good jobs, they were law-abiding people and they started a family. They had beautiful children who themselves have now had children, who are the grandchildren of my neighbours. They were law-abiding, hardworking and decent people—exactly the sort of people you wanted to have next door to you. Every year, they'd go to the markets, bring back a ute full of grapes and make their wine in their garage to get them through the next year. The backyard was full of beautiful vegetables—the most beautiful vegetables you could find. They were great neighbours, and they could barely speak a word of English. But did it matter? No, it didn't matter one hoot. They were good people, and they did a lot of good for this country. But now we're saying to people like that who might come to Australia: 'You're not good enough to be one of us.' Heavens, unless they can write the sort of essay that some people in this place would struggle to write, they can't possibly be one of us! This is an attack on multiculturalism. This is the government saying: 'We don't support multiculturalism, and we want to end it. Unless you look and sound like us, we don't want to have you in this country.'
What we're trying to do here is counterproductive. Are we saying to the best people, the most clever people and the most talented people in the world, 'You're not welcome in Australia unless you look, sound and write like us'? We're saying, to the best business people in the world, to the best sports people in the world, to the best academics, researchers and scientists in the world, and—you know what—some of the nicest people in the world, 'You're not welcome here.' And that's all because a government and a Prime Minister are on the ropes politically and think it's time to drag out national security and pander to xenophobia and racism. Surely we're better than this. Let One Nation and the Australian Conservatives—these fringe dwellers—go off and pander to the racists and the xenophobes in our community. Thankfully, there are not too many of them. But, when the government and one of this country's major political parties think it's okay to drag out rot like this bill, we have really hit rock bottom. We shouldn't be acting like this, the Prime Minister shouldn't be acting like this and the government shouldn't be acting like this. We are a rich and multicultural country. I don't care if the person who lives next to me doesn't speak good English so long as they're a decent person who wants to work hard, contribute to this country and follow the laws of the land. That's what matters. What about the disadvantaged people in the world? Don't we want to help them out as well? What about the asylum seekers who would come to this country genuinely fleeing for their life? And the vast majority have genuinely fled for their life. Why wouldn't we embrace them and make them welcome?
I know an Australian from Melbourne—some of you might know of him—Najaf Mazari. He came out some years ago as an asylum seeker. He's from Afghanistan. He wrote a book some years ago, which I launched for him in Hobart, and there's a beautiful account in there, in an otherwise dark story, of when he was imprisoned at the Woomera detention centre. There's a beautiful page in there where he is obviously reflecting on all of the people who were in detention with him and he says words to the effect of, 'Within this detention centre there are doctors, engineers, nurses, social workers, builders, plumbers and electricians.' He says, 'In this detention centre are all of the people needed to make a country, every skill you can imagine, and people who have fled for their lives, who have made it to Australia.' Fortunately many of those people have been able to stay here. Fortunately many of those people have become Australians. Najaf was nominated as an Australian of the Year in Victoria in 2014. His image was an entrant in the Archibald Prize at one stage. It was good then. But now we're saying to people like that: 'You're not welcome. We don't want people like you. You don't look like us. You don't talk like us. You don't write like us. Well, you mustn't be as good as us and you're not welcome.' The irony of this is breathtaking.
This country of course has the most wonderful Aboriginal heritage. There was a revelation the other day that in fact our First Australians arrived even earlier than we first thought—not 40,000 years but perhaps 60,000, 65,000 or 70,000 years ago. What a wonderful history. But modern Australia, or Australia since settlement, has been built by people coming here. They built the Snowy Hydro, they built the hydro in Tasmania, they built the railway lines, they built our suburbs, they built our roads and they built our hospitals. They are now the academics in our universities. They are now the leaders of this country. They are now our senior businesspeople. They built us. We are them.
That is until now, until a government with 17 bad Newspoll polls in a row. Their political self-interest is more important to them than humanity and than this country acting like a decent, law-abiding country with compassion. This is their political self-interest in government. Because they've had 17 bad Newspoll polls in a row, they need to hang some flags behind them and pander to racism, pander to xenophobia and try to claw back those people who have drifted off to One Nation, the Australian Conservatives and the other fringe dwellers and bottom feeders. That's more important to them than to foster, continue and celebrate what has made this country great. Modern Australia was built by people from overseas. Australian multiculturalism is the most successful, stable and rich multiculturalism anywhere in the world. It's stable, it's safe, it's rich and it's wonderful. This government want to put their political self-interest ahead of that.
I make the point again that what this government is seeking to do here flies in the face of common sense. It flies in the face of decency and humanity. It's not in this country's self-interest. It doesn't matter if someone doesn't speak the best English. It doesn't matter if they can't write the sort of essay you might see in a university. It doesn't matter if they haven't been here for countless years. The only thing that matters is that they want to come here and that they commit to obey the law and be a good and productive member of this country. That's what matters. It's worked this far. This is a wonderful country, and we are wonderful exactly because of the ways we've done it in the past.
It is not good enough for this government to be putting first its political self-interest and its desire and willingness to pander to xenophobia and to racism—and that's what it is. If you come from a country that is 'like us'—so if you look like us, you speak like us and you write like us—you're welcome under these laws. But if you come from a place that doesn't look like us, speak like us or write like us, heavens! If you're an Asian, a South Asian or a Middle Easterner, the government are saying, 'You're not the sort of people we want in this place, so we're going to build this punitive infrastructure and legislative framework to do everything we can to keep people like you out of here, even though it's people like you who built this country.' I think of the family that lived next door to me in Sydney—the most beautiful Italian family you would ever meet: good people, law-abiding people. They built this country. People like that should be welcomed. They should be embraced. They should be allowed to become Australian citizens. That's what we should be doing—not what this government is intent on doing here.
I will oppose this bill, and in doing so I will represent the great many people in the electorate of Denison who oppose this bill. And I will stand with the great many people in this country who oppose this bill—people who see it for what it is: a political fix for a Prime Minister under pressure, a political fix for a party under pressure and a political fix for a Prime Minister and a party that are prepared to abandon decency and common sense, all in a misguided attempt to improve their political fortunes. Well, it's wrong. I won't support it, and I will be delighted to stand with many other members in this place when we don't support it.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (13:26): It is a great pleasure to make a contribution to the debate today on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I do so as a representative—a very proud representative, I must say—of one of the most multicultural communities in the whole of this country. A lot of people will come into the chamber and make a contribution on this bill, and it is an incredibly important one, but I want to say that I am here today speaking on behalf of a community that will be directly affected by the changes made in this bill. Not only will they be affected; this bill reflects on the contribution so many people in my community have made to this country through decades and decades of hard work.
Labor is going to oppose this bill. I will go through some of the detailed reasons why we fundamentally object to some of the things that are being proposed. First I want to highlight how important the discussion about this piece of legislation is. People who spend a bit of time watching parliament at home can see members of parliament coming in and out of this House day after day, and we can get very excited and do a lot of huffing and puffing about details of bills that don't affect many people in the Australian community. This is not such a bill. This is not a bill that deals with benign questions. It is one that deals with the most fundamental of questions—that is: who are we as Australians?
This bill represents a fundamental departure; it represents a fundamental redrawing of the line between who is in the Australian community and who is out of the Australian community. I had thought that this was a question that would not give rise to fundamental differences of opinion across the chamber. I, in my naivety, believe that as Australians we are represented by values that we share. We've got a lot of young people in the gallery today. In their citizenship class they probably sit down and talk about the characteristics that define Australians. They probably talk about things like a belief in egalitarianism, a belief in Australian equality. We share this very important commitment to multiculturalism, reflecting that almost all of us in this country have travelled a long way, from a different country, to build a life here. There are things like our fundamental belief in fairness, in ditching all the airs and graces that probably troubled life back in the countries where many of us came from. But what joins all these features is that this is about values. When you ask the normal Australian in the street, 'What defines us as a community?' they are going to talk about Australian values. What we've learnt from this bill being put forward in the chamber is that those opposite have an entirely different idea of what it means to be Australian. This government believes that it's not your values that make you an Australian citizen but that it's something that seems to me to be fairly arbitrary—that is, how fancy your English skills are.
I make the point—and I will do so continually in my remarks today—that if these laws had been in place decades ago, many thousands of the people that I represent in this chamber would never have had the chance to become Australian citizens. I can say with absolutely certainty that our country would be so much poorer for losing the contribution of the people who make my community the extraordinary place that it is. The people that I represent make fine Australians, and everywhere I go, in every corner of my community, there are migrants who are doctors, who are lawyers, who are brilliant parents, who are teaching the next generation of Australians. There are people who are doing extraordinary and marvellous things.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Hotham will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude her contribution.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Endometriosis
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:30): When I became an Endometriosis Australia ambassador, I made a pledge to end the silence on this insidious disease, a disease that affects one in 10 women throughout the world. Today I want to share some of those stories because they are powerful, they're heartbreaking and they're happening to one in 10 women in our communities each and every day. I've heard stories of 13 surgeries, two bowel resections, having part of the urethra removed, ongoing kidney problems, infertility, failed IVF cycles, miscarriages and early menopause. I've heard, 'I wish I had excision surgery sooner so I may have had children.' Another said: 'I wish they spoke more about the mental and emotional symptoms associated with endo. Living with chronic pain and hormonal hell every single day wreaks havoc on your mind and your soul. Endo has taken over every aspect of my life, and to be told time and time again it's not real, it's not that bad, suck it up, it's just a girl thing, it's a bad period breaks my heart. This disease is daily torture.' These are just some of the stories. I'm going to continue to speak in parliament about the tragedy and the havoc that is being wreaked on the lives of these women throughout Australia, each and every day. It is one in 10. We need to end the silence on endo.
Goods and Sevices Tax
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (13:33): I would like to make some comments about WA's pathetic share of GST, the work that WA Liberal members and senators have been doing to fix this and how, appallingly, our WA Labor members have turned their backs on Western Australia. When the Treasurer announced the Productivity Commission inquiry into the GST, he said that it only happened through the strong advocacy from every single WA Liberal member and senator. Collectively, the WA Liberals submitted a detailed submission to the GST inquiry in consultation with industry and following extensive consultations with our communities. WA federal Labor also made their submission, and it has been ripped to shreds by the press and their party's own state leadership. Disregarding WA, they said the WA federal Labor members seek an outcome to this situation but one that doesn't negatively impact on other states and territories. In response, Roger Cook, the Deputy Premier, didn't hold back. He said:
If they haven't supported the State Government's position they need to take more notice of it.
Mr Cook said:
It’s time that people get real about this …
In The Sunday Times they went further, saying, 'The WA federal Labor members and senators have hung out to dry not only WA but also their state colleagues.' WA Liberals have a strong record of arguing for GST reform. We'll work with the government in response to the Productivity Commission inquiry to deliver long-lasting and real reform. WA federal Labor members need to join the WA Liberals—
Mervyn, Mr Alfred Leslie
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (13:33): I rise today to speak of the great contribution of Alfred Leslie Mervyn to Australia's war efforts in World War II. I am so honoured that Alfred has been a lifelong constituent of Barton and a lifelong resident of Arncliffe. Last month I awarded him the certificate of recognition of service to Australia during the Second World War. He came with his family and we had a lovely morning tea. He signed up at the age of 21 in January 1942. This was a very fearful and uncertain time for Australia, and we must not understate the importance of our home front. Just the previous month Pearl Harbor had been attacked and the Imperial Japanese Army had begun its drive down through the Malaysian peninsula. The following month, Singapore would fall and the bombing of Darwin would commence.
At this point, our policymakers were preparing for an invasion of Australia. Without hesitation, thousands of brave young men such as Alfred Leslie answered the call. He served in the 132nd Australian General Transport Company. He was based in the Atherton Tablelands in North Queensland as an electrical fitter and driver, delivering supplies to personnel based up and down North Queensland. He was stationed not far from the Japanese air raids on North Queensland, which also targeted Townsville and Mossman. I pay tribute not just to Alfred Leslie Mervyn but to all the service men and women who served on the home front.
Wide Bay Electorate: Bruce Highway
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay) (13:34): On Friday I officially opened the much anticipated Tinana interchange on the Bruce Highway. The new interchange was a $30 million election commitment made by my predecessor, the former member for Wide Bay and Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss. The interchange improves travel times and road safety on what was a very dangerous stretch of the national highway. It has transformed the main gateway to Maryborough and the Fraser Coast into a safe and welcoming entrance for locals and visitors who are exploring our beautiful region. The interchange will open up the Fraser Coast to more efficient movement of traffic, including freight. Tourists—particularly the grey nomads who are on holiday to escape the chill down south—will find the interchange significantly more appealing and accessible, increasing the likelihood of them stopping to explore. Importantly, the road will also be safer for local motorists who use the interchange daily to travel between work and home.
I thank Warren Truss for setting the wheels in motion to make this interchange a reality and I also thank the nearby businesses, who have shown much patience and perseverance with these extended roadworks. Now the roadworks are complete, I hope to see those local businesses thrive from the increase in traffic. This upgrade will provide lasting benefits for both the Fraser Coast community and motorists. I welcome its completion.
Charlottesville: Attacks
Dr ALY (Cowan) (13:36): I rise to condemn the attacks in Charlottesville, Virginia, which have already claimed three lives. These attacks have brought hatred and bigotry to the world stage—hatred and bigotry that has resurfaced after years in the shadows. Never in my lifetime did I expect to see the flag of white supremacy surface so brazenly. Never in my lifetime did I expect to see hundreds of white marchers with blazing torches converge with such force. I thought the world had moved on from such hatred.
It's not enough to say that this has happened somewhere far away from us and doesn't affect us. We should condemn these attacks with the same vigour that we condemn all acts of terrorism, whether they be by violent jihadists or by the violent right wing. In the immortal words of the poet and philosopher Kahlil Gibran:
… you hate one another because each of you deems himself too great to be the brother of the next man.
So we should be reminded that no one of us is better than another, no race is superior to another, no skin colour more supreme than another. We should be reminded of our shared community and our shared humanity.
Thankfully, our nation has withstood attempts by white supremacists and white nationalists to divide our society, but we are not immune to the kind of bigotry and hatred we are seeing in Charlottesville. So we should remain ever vigilant and ever cognisant of our own vulnerability to the malicious and baleful forces of bigotry and racial division and the politics of race. (Time expired)
National Science Week
Myanmar Mentoring Program
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (13:38): Last week we launched National Science Week and, as part of that, students from Ulladulla High School came to celebrate the completion of their work for Young Australians' Plan for the Planet. Their idea was to set an agenda on 20 aspects of policymaking for the next five years to address the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. While we know that much more practical work has to be done, it was exciting to see that half the Ulladulla team were female students. This in itself is one of the UN development goals, that of gender equity. Thank you, Gemma Smith—their teacher—for your efforts both on the day and in all the months beforehand. I was proud to meet students Anna Potter, Taseka Frank and Lachlan Page, then introduce them in my local community radio interview with Barry Mack and Chance Hanlon.
Last week was also a celebration week for our international efforts on gender equity. The Australian parliament hosted six female MPs from Myanmar. I, along with five other female MPs, mentor these passionate and dedicated women. I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Julie Bishop, for her assistance through allowing the program to visit Australia. One of the ways to make a significant bond and encourage women in politics is to create a positive support network, and this was very much the outcome. Women truly do hold up half the sky—as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation promotes—and we should do everything we can to help women, from encouraging the study of science to mentoring women toward political leadership. Give women and girls a chance and they will achieve and shine as stars in the sky.
Veterans
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:39): I rise to express my gratitude to the shadow minister for defence personnel and veterans, Amanda Rishworth, the member for Kingston, for visiting my electorate during the winter break. With the shadow minister, I attended both the RAAF Williams bases at Point Cook and Laverton and was very pleased to see how well the museum is going. Of course, Point Cook was the first RAAF base in Australia, and the museum there is fantastic. I'd encourage all to go.
I also want to share my appreciation for those from Werribee RSL and the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia's western suburbs sub-branch who met with the shadow minister to share their stories of dealing with the bureaucracies and with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the way that they're supporting our young veterans. Recently, some of them returned from overseas. Some of the stories were quite heart breaking, but the work that these men are doing to support another generation is exemplary, and they should be commended for that work.
I also, of course, look forward to meeting with the Vietnam veterans in my electorate on Friday for Vietnam Veterans Day, which will mark the 51st anniversary, at the Werribee cenotaph. I encourage locals to go there, join with our Vietnam veterans and show them some respect. I want to thank the Vietnam veterans for the support that they give me in the electorate by making sure that I am included in all of their events. (Time expired)
Harms, Sergeant Owen
Creed, Ms Leonie
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:41): I would like to pay tribute to Sergeant Owen Harms and Leonie Creed. Central Queensland lost two respected identities in the past week. Sergeant Owen Harms served 30 years in the Queensland Police Service and 20 years as sergeant at Miriam Vale. Words describing Owen include: a true blue Aussie, gentle, generous, popular, an outstanding citizen and a mate to everyone. Owen battled cancer, heart attacks, strokes and the demons of his police force service. He was a decorated officer who was awarded the Australian Police Medal, the National Medal and a Certificate of Merit from the Royal Humane Society of Australasia. He had community passion. He was well connected with the Gary Larson Oval and the Miriam Vale Rodeo. Owen was farewelled by 350 police officers, who formed a guard of honour, and some 3,000 people from the community. I give my sympathies to his family—Lyn, his wife, and his children, Brendon and Breanna.
I extend my condolences to the Creed family. Leonie Creed was a remarkable woman. She had a just-do-it attitude, a generous heart and was part of the Creed Grazing family, which includes the Old Station and Langmorn Station. She was famous for holding the Old Station Fly-In and Heritage Show—a regular annual event for the aeroplane bus. She is now reunited with her late husband George, who was a former mayor of Gladstone. I give my sympathies to Leonie's sons, Ron and Andrew, and their families. Rest in peace.
Tasmania: Health Care
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:42): Last week, the Royal Hobart Hospital lost its accreditation for psychiatric medical training. This is beyond embarrassing. It's a disaster. It's come just days after nine mental health patients were left stranded in the emergency department for an entire weekend because there were no spare beds. Clearly, we need action now on mental health. It's ludicrous that it only gets half the amount of funding compared to that for physical health, and that's just the start. The Tasmanian government must give health reform a much higher priority. They say they have, but the evidence is that they haven't. They simply must do this for Tasmanian patients and the long-suffering staff who are sick and tired of plugging the gaps.
Beyond this, we need national reform and, in particular, one level of government responsible for hospitals. But, with both the state and federal governments involved, it's a complete circus that is overly complicated and totally inefficient. There must be greater investment in prevention. Currently, wellness programs only get two to three per cent of the funding when we know that every $1 spend on prevention returns $5 to the taxpayer. There must also be greater focus on primary health care, with GPs receiving just 17 per cent of the federal health budget even though GPs see over 85 per cent of Australia's population every year. Tasmanians deserve a first-world health service, not the shambles we're lumped with.
CASTEC Rural Pioneers
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:44): Today I rise to speak about the tremendous success of the CASTEC Rural Pioneers basketball team in Mount Gambier. My hometown of Mount Gambier has many things to be proud of, and our sporting achievements are right up there. The CASTEC Rural Pioneers are Mount Gambier's only national sporting team. Indeed, they are Barker's only sporting team that are competing in a national league and playing, as they do, in the South East Australian Basketball League. The Pioneers have been extremely successful in recent years, and this year has been no exception. Last Friday the Pioneers defeated the Nunawading Spectres, 92-81, in the South East Australian Basketball League's East conference first semifinal. The Pioneers finished the regular season on top of the conference ladder, with an outstanding 2017 home record.
The Pioneers are no strangers to end-of-season success. Their next game, scheduled for Friday week at the Ice House, will be their chance to win their fifth consecutive East conference championship. With a week's break and home court advantage in the East conference final, the pioneers are in poll position to take home yet another championship. The Pioneers will face the winner of next week's elimination final between Nunawading and Geelong, who managed to emerge victorious against Nunawading on Sunday afternoon. With bated breath, I look forward to celebrating the results of the final. Let's go, five in a row!
Care Leavers Australasia Network
Mr HILL (Bruce) (13:45): I wish to congratulate Mr Ray Prosser on his 90th birthday. I dropped in yesterday to Ray's party on the way to the airport. It's a milestone worth celebrating for anyone. And as I said to the guests there, it is also better than the alternative. But Ray is also a social warrior and a national legend. You can find his photo on the front of the brochure of CLAN, Care Leavers Australasia Network. Ray had the courage to stand up a few years ago and tell his story to the royal commission into institutional sexual abuse. He'd never told his wife of 40 years that he was raped as a boy at the age of 10 when in the care of the Salvation Army. He did this to help others, through CLAN, and also to fight for justice.
We may too easily forget that before the royal commission there was so much stigma in society in actually standing up and telling these stories. Ray and those at his gathering asked me to raise with this House and again call on the government and the Prime Minister to do the right thing. They're still waiting for redress. Survivors have waited decades. They want acknowledgment, recognition and an apology but most of all justice. It was remarked that there are much better and more important things to spend $122 million on than an opinion survey on marriage equality when survivors like Ray are waiting for justice. Family is what you make of it. They are those who show you love and support and accept you, warts and all. The Prime Minister needs to do better by Ray.
Durack Electorate: Prime Minister's Visit
Ms PRICE (Durack) (13:47): I rise today to speak about the Prime Minister's recent visit to my electorate, to the beautiful Kimberley town of Broome. It was such a wonderful opportunity for the Prime Minister to visit my electorate. In particular, I think it was incredibly uplifting, and I have to say that the community made the most of the visit. The visit coincided with the announcement that the Kimberley would receive $8.7 million in federal funding through the Building Better Regions Fund, which includes an investment into a cultural centre which is to be owned and operated by the Yawuru Aboriginal corporation. Whilst in Broome the Prime Minister and I took the opportunity to meet with Peter Yu, who is the CEO of Yawuru, to discuss the issue of youth suicide in the Kimberley.
When the Prime Minister was in Broome he also took the opportunity to meet with a whole raft of community members, but a highlight was meeting the schoolchildren from the Broome Senior High School as well as St Mary's and various other schools in Broome. Of particular note was a small group of children who drove down from One Arm Point. This is a two-hour drive for these young people, on an unsealed road, to meet with their Prime Minister. And I can tell you, they were the highlight of the trip. Coincidently, this government has committed some $50 million to sealing the road that these young people drove on, which is called Cape Leveque Road, so that the next time the Prime Minister comes to Broome and they come to visit him their trip, I can assure them, will be shorter and much more comfortable.
Connors, Mrs Robyn
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (13:48): I rise to pray tribute to Mrs Robyn Connors, an educator who had a long history of service to New South Wales public schools. Robyn had been teaching since 1974. It is undoubtable that teaching has evolved considerably during the years, and Mrs Robyn Connors showed much aptitude to remain current to be able to teach across generations. Her career gave her the opportunity to travel as well as exposure to country and metropolitan schools, including Werrington Public School. Her husband, Max, also was a teacher, at nearby Londonderry Public School. Robyn had a love of teaching drama, music, science and choir. Like a lot of teachers, she did this during her lunchtimes and before and after school Robyn was a passionate educator, a global thinker and a woman of enormous warmth. 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 a little extra, and this was her magic.
Robyn taught my own children at Little Blaxland Public 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, the community she loved and the kids she taught. It is a true reflection of her work that 20 of her former students, now high schoolers, gave up their Saturday to assemble as a choir to sing for Robyn one final time. The kids would be joined by more at her funeral service, where they farewelled Robyn to Over the rainbow. To Max, Tristan, Nathan and Melissa, thank you for the gift of sharing Robyn. Through you and all of the students' lives she touched, she lives, and her legacy will last for generations.
Grey Electorate
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:50): Along with Senator Anne Ruston, I'm very pleased today to host a delegation from my Upper Spencer Gulf cities of Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla. Mayors, CEOs and councillors came to Canberra to lobby for a range of projects for that part of my electorate, that part of South Australia—an area that, I must say, they and I feel is breathing much easier this week than it was a few weeks ago, before the announcement about the sale to Liberty House in the UK of Arrium's steelworks and other assets. There has been a pall lifted off these three cities. I remember speaking to some workers at the plant, and I said that hopefully some of those jobs around the house, like the paving, might get done. One of the workers said to me, 'Yes, I'm doing some paving out the back.' Another one said 'Yes, we're going to build a room on the house that we've been planning for two years but haven't had the confidence to build.' I spoke to a builder recently who reported the same.
There are a lot of reasons to be optimistic. The federal government has backed a number of projects in this region, including a $110-million investment through ARENA into a solar thermal power station with storage plant in Port Augusta and $450,000 for a feasibility study on pumped hydro at Port Augusta. The Carrapateena mine with Oz Minerals looks like it is going ahead. Nyrstar is opening a $6 million plant, and there are many others. (Time expired)
Marriage
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:52): Last week, I asked on my Facebook page: what would you do with $122 million rather than wasting it on a divisive, non-compulsory, non-binding postal vote on marriage equality? A survey! Guess what people in my electorate said? Jody Hardiman said that she would spend the money on supporting people over 21 with type 1 diabetes. Harry said that he would spend the money on better mental-health support for LGBTIQ Australians living in regional areas. Susan and Alison said that they would spend the money on the early childhood sector. Mark Reed said, 'Hi Lisa, I'd build three incredible new high schools in under-serviced areas in regional Victoria.' Jeremy Forbes said 'Some to suicide prevention funding for grassroots community groups, some to support homeless services, domestic violence groups and advocacy groups and education.' Emma McKenzie mentioned aged care, public health, mental health, education, public housing, infrastructure—the list goes on. Dave from the Chewton Primary School mentioned a library and gymnasium.
One of my favourites comes from Lisa Ruffell, Liberal Party member and former mayor: aged care and health, and more equipment and staff for hospitals. Even their own acknowledge that $122 million is being wasted on the postal survey. Enough is enough. Let's get on with the free vote in the parliament.
Fadden Electorate: Lutheran Ormeau Rivers District School
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (13:53): At end of July I was very pleased to represent the government and open stage 6 of the Lutheran Ormeau Rivers District School—LORDS for short—building program. One of the reasons why I was especially pleased was that 11 years ago I started campaigning with a group of locals to see that school built. Those locals were there on the day—Peter and Rosslyn Grant, Ian and Kaye Rossmann, Geoff and Rhyll Rossmann and members of the Zipf family. In fact, they'd been campaigning for seven years prior to when I turned up. Together, we got the school up and running. Now, seeing a stage 6 building is extraordinary.
The Australian government contributed $550,000 under the Capital Grants Program. The state government coughed up the same—well done—and LORDS, including the Lutheran community, contributed $888,246 for a total project cost of just under $2 million. The project saw the construction of three secondary classrooms, an under croft, which is a combined covered outdoor learning area, student amenities, a store and associated travel areas. What began as a fight in 2000 by a bunch of families and then a political fight in 2006-07 has come to such a wonderful reality out there in the Ormeau Rivers area. It was great to be there to open stage 6. Bring on stage 7, I say.
Prime Minister
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:55): A few days ago we watched in amazement as the Prime Minister puffed himself up and told the press gallery that he was, indeed, a strong leader. It was unusual, because normally prime ministers don't deliver themselves a pep conference in public. Awkward! Yes, very awkward, but not as awkward as the feeling that these coalition MPs felt when they went back to their electorates on the weekend and said, 'We have no money for your school upgrades, no money to fix your dodgy hospitals or your dodgy roads, but we're going to spend $122 million on a waste of money on a postal survey.'
We do need strong leadership in this country. We need strong leadership to fix the power bills, which have gone up by 27 per cent in New South Wales alone. We need strong leadership on a Deputy Prime Minister who has confessed he might be a few roos loose in his citizenship top paddock. We need strong leadership on the NBN, which has the Prime Minister's fingerprints all over it, and hour after hour, day after day, is dropping out with no relief in sight for customers. We need the Prime Minister to stop talking about strong leadership and start delivering it. Get your house in order, because if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country.
Queensland: Schools
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:56): There is such a thing as a slippery slope, and the Labor Party is doing its best to see Australia slide down it. A form of restrictive censorship was recently recommended to the Queensland state Labor government, whereby children were not to speak about Christianity in the school play yard. For example, under the directive to principals issued by the Queensland education department, a child would not be allowed to give another child a Christmas card that might have a Christmas tree on the front cover, let alone, heaven forbid, a picture of baby Jesus. It should concern all who value freedom of religion in this country that the Queensland education minister was slow to confirm that the directives from her department would be rescinded. What should concern us more is the fact that the bureaucracy in that department in Queensland is filled to the brim with ideological appointees. Is this what the modern Labor Party has come to—a bunch of virtue-signalling socialists who refuse to accept the values on which our country is built? I say, let children be children, let them have their Christmas, let them have their freedom.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: South Sydney High School
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:58): I wish to congratulate the students, teachers and staff of South Sydney High School, who recently hosted their third annual multicultural flag day. I have often said that the best thing about representing the people of Kingsford Smith is their wonderful diversity and multiculturalism.
That was on display on 28 July at South Sydney High School with their multicultural flag day. This is an idea the students came up with. The flag day serves to recognise and celebrate the different cultural backgrounds of the school community. Students wore traditional clothing and waved flags from 74 different countries representing their own family and cultural heritage. Dances, songs, and speeches all served to highlight the value of diversity, including a special presentation from former showgirl of China's first burlesque club and author of The good girl of Chinatown, Jenevieve Chang.
The passion and pride of students for their cultural heritage was clear for all to see. It's wonderful to see it in such a supportive and accepting environment. Congratulations to the students of South Sydney High School for coming up with this initiative of celebrating multiculturalism and diversity in their community, and on hosting a very successful multicultural flag day. I was very pleased and honoured to be able to take part.
Volunteers
Ms FLINT (Boothby) (13:59): It is one of the great privileges as a member of parliament to be able to acknowledge our wonderful community of volunteers. As we know, volunteers do more than just provide services for our communities. They bring people together locally, encourage friendships, understanding and respect, thereby keeping our nation strong. This is particularly true of the Sturt State Emergency Service's volunteers, and I would like to pay tribute to them today.
The Sturt SES group is led by the irrepressible Sturt Unit Manager, CJ Shaw, and Deputy Manager, Marnie Sales. They do incredible work. In the 2016-17 financial year, the Sturt SES responded to 1,532 calls for help. That is a lot of times in 12 months that their volunteers stopped whatever they were doing to answer our community's calls for assistance. The SES volunteers have given over 6,500 hours to help others. When you bear in mind that this is spread over the unit's 40 to 50 volunteers, you can see that this is truly a superhuman effort. On behalf of our community in the Boothby hills area, I cannot thank them enough.
Earlier in August, the Sturt SES opened their new facilities in Coromandel Valley. I would like to acknowledge the local businesses who supported the event. The Bake Bakery at Coromandel Valley provided the food and Blackwood Hire proved the heating. Most importantly, I thank all our Sturt SES volunteers for serving our community and keeping our residents safe.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Qualifications of Members
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the government has asked the High Court to determine whether the Deputy Prime Minister is constitutionally qualified to be a member of parliament. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Turnbull government is the first government in Australian history that has had to ask the High Court whether in fact it has a majority?
A government member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right.
Mr Robert interjecting—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Fadden! The Treasurer!
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:02): I thank the honourable member for his question. The High Court has made it very clear that the operation of section 44(i) is not without limits and that it must be read in light of its purpose and intent, which is to prevent conflicts of loyalty arising among people who are members and senators. Now, if an Australian citizen who became a citizen of this country by reason of being born here was to be ineligible to stand for parliament because the law of a foreign country imposed foreign citizenship on them, without their knowledge, due to their descent from a parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, then plainly millions of Australians could be disqualified from standing for parliament.
Based on the advice we have from the Solicitor-General, the government are very confident that the court will not find that the member for New England is disqualified from being a member of this House—very confident, indeed. We have not referred the matter to the court because of any lack of confidence in this view, but, as I noted in my letter to the Leader of the Opposition today, because we want to give the court the opportunity to clarify the operation of the law in this vitally important area, which goes obviously to the heart of our democracy.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Durack, the member for McEwen will cease interjecting. As I made clear earlier today, at the beginning of parliament when the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement, I am going to have a very low tolerance for interjections today. I place everyone on notice with that warning. The matters being discussed require me to hear the questions and the answers, and I think members should appreciate that. Also, as Speaker, those interjecting are not just disrupting me from doing my job as Speaker but preventing other members from hearing the important matters being discussed.
Taxation
Ms PRICE (Durack) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the action the government is taking to lower the tax burden on households and businesses and to grow the economy, generate jobs and increase wages? Is the Prime Minister aware of any risks to the government's approach?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:04): I thank the honourable member for her question.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: I recall the visit we made to Broome, where we met with so many small businesses, family businesses, who are already benefitting from our business tax cuts. They have more money in their pocket, which they can now invest. You get a better return on investment and you get more investment. And do you know what you get with more investment?
Government members: More jobs.
Mr TURNBULL: More jobs—pretty obvious. We need tax rates that encourage and incentivise businesses to hire and that reward hard work. All of our economic policies are focused on delivering this: stronger growth, more jobs and higher wages. We've reduced taxes for millions of small and medium businesses. We've extended the instant asset write-off. We've stopped more than half a million middle-income Australians from entering the second highest tax bracket. And those policies are helping to grow the economy and deliver jobs. Only the other day the Leader of the Opposition said that we were in a jobless period in the economy. It was a jobless recovery, he said. We've had more than 240,000 new jobs in the last financial year alone.
Most of us here know that the biggest handbrake on economic growth and the biggest risk to jobs and wages is higher taxes. In fact, before he started to morph into Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition was very good on this subject. He gave speech after speech saying that, if you reduce taxes, you get more investment and you get more jobs. He was right on message. He and Paul Keating and the member for McMahon were all on the same song sheet, but now of course they've jumped on the Jeremy Corbyn song sheet. He is the most left-wing leader the Labor Party have had for generations. The member for Isaacs, that dauntless advocate, that brave barrister—the man you want to have if you're in a bit of trouble—was complaining about me saying this: a journalist said, 'Who was a more left-wing Labor leader than Bill Shorten?' Vacant. 'Next,' he said—'Next question.' He couldn't think of one. The reality is that not for generations have you seen the Labor Party led by someone so determined to smash business, smash investment and undermine jobs. And when he was asked what his economic policy was for driving jobs, under a furious interrogation by the right-wing media—by Fran Kelly on Radio National—he said, 'We're all in favour of public transport.' That's about it. No plan and no jobs. (Time expired)
Deputy Prime Minister
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Just before question time, the New Zealand internal affairs minister, Peter Dunne, confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister is a citizen of New Zealand. Now that the government has confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister is a citizen of New Zealand, how can the Prime Minister possibly defend keeping him in the cabinet and letting him vote in this House?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:08): At the risk of inviting the honourable member to get a rundown on constitutional law from his shadow Attorney-General, I refer him to my previous answer, which summarises perfectly the position. The Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Prime Minister, is qualified to sit in this House, and the High Court will so hold.
Taxation
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (14:09): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House what action the government is taking to keep taxes under control in order to boost our economy? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:09): I thank the member for Groom for his question. He knows that to grow our economy and to support more and better-paid jobs, you need to keep taxes as a share of the economy, the tax burden on the Australian economy, as low as possible. That's why, as the Prime Minister has just reminded the House, we as a government have cut taxes. The Turnbull government has cut taxes. We have cut small business taxes. We have cut medium-sized business taxes. We have cut personal income taxes. We have cut taxes for entrepreneurs, for innovators and for wage earners, and we want to cut taxes for young families who want to save for their first home. We want to ensure that the corporate tax rate in this country is internationally competitive. We've also put a speed limit on taxes in our budget. We have a speed limit on taxes to ensure it does not rise above 23.9 per cent as a share of the economy.
That is because the Turnbull government believes in the economics of opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition leads a Labor Party that is committed only to the politics of envy. That's why they do not agree with keeping the tax burden on the Australian economy low. Labor will increase the tax burden on the Australian economy by more than $150 billion in a barrage of taxes, putting up taxes on small business, on medium-sized business, increased taxes on investment—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin is warned.
Mr MORRISON: Increased taxes on housing, increased taxes on family businesses, increased taxes on superannuation savings and increased personal taxes. It is an absolute tax blizzard that will come from a winter of taxes delivered by the Leader of the Opposition if he were ever to become Prime Minister of this country, freezing growth that is needed for more and better-paid jobs. He will remove the tax speed limit on the budget. We know that on the taxes they announced at the last election—and it has got a lot worse since then—taxes as a share of the economy will rise to 25.7 per cent. In current year terms that would be an additional $31 billion in tax burden on the Australian economy. On this side of the House we believe in the economics of opportunity. We on this side of the House believe that you work hard, you go to work, you invest and you make a better future for yourself. We want a tax system that supports that. You can't pay the bills with the politics of envy.
Mr Bowen: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a document, the press release in relation to the minister's answer, from the Parliamentary Budget Office, which says that references in the media this morning to modelling being released today—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will resume his seat. Is leaved granted? Leave is not granted.
Deputy Prime Minister
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the government has relied on its one-vote majority to block a royal commission into the banks and to block amendments to legislation which would have stopped nearly 700,000 Australians from having their penalty rates cut? There is now doubt over whether the Deputy Prime Minister is constitutionally qualified to sit as a member of parliament and exercise a vote in this House. Will the government now rule out accepting the Deputy Prime Minister's vote in this House while his constitutional qualifications are in doubt?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:13): For the reasons I have described earlier, the government is satisfied that the member for New England is qualified to sit in this House. Based on the advice that we have received, we are very confident indeed that this will be confirmed in the High Court. I repeat: we did not refer this matter to the court because of any doubt about the member for New England's position, but because of the need, plainly, in the public interest, to give the court the opportunity to clarify the operation of this section, which is so important to the operation of our parliament.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Mayo, can I take the opportunity to inform the House we have joining us in the gallery today former senator for the Northern Territory Nova Peris. On behalf of the House, I extend a extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Telecommunications
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (14:14): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Communications. The Productivity Commission's Telecommunications universal service obligation, report No. 83, recommends winding back Telstra's obligation to provide payphones. Payphones are a critical form of communication in regional areas. Mayo has more than 130 identified mobile phone black spots. Vast sections of Kangaroo Island and Fleurieu have no coverage. Unemployed Australians rely on payphones to communicate with Centrelink and jobactive providers. Will the minister be implementing the recommendation, and, if so, how will the government ensure regions with little or no mobile phone coverage and unemployed Australians are not worse off?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (14:15): I do thank the member for her question and acknowledge her interest in the delivery of communication services to her constituents, and, of course, constituents across rural and remote Australia. Clearly, the amount of traffic over payphones has reduced consistently over the years. At the same time, what we are seeing is a greater and greater increase in the amount of traffic occurring over mobile phones, and, thanks to the work of this government under the Mobile Black Spots Program, a very significant increase in the number of mobile phone base stations around the country, and, therefore, the number of people who are able to obtain mobile coverage.
The government continues to work on its policies, in relation to regional communications, and particularly the Mobile Black Spots Program. Through this and the universal service obligation, and the other policy directions of the government, we are continuing to ensure that the best possible communication services can be provided in regional Australia.
The SPEAKER: The minister has concluded his answer. I know the member for Mayo was about to seek a point of order.
Agriculture Industry
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:16): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Northern Australia—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Capricornia will resume her seat. The member for Sydney is warned, as is the member for Gellibrand. I refer members to my earlier statement. I will start lowering the volume if this persists. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: I want to raise two matters with you, Mr Speaker: one with respect to Practice and one with respect to a resolution carried by the House earlier today. Page 47 of Practice makes clear that:
Section 64 further provides that after the first general election no Minister of State can hold office for a longer period than three months unless he or she is or becomes a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives.
Earlier today, the House unanimously resolved to refer to the High Court:
(a) whether, by reason of section 44(i) of the Constitution, the place of the Member for New England (Mr Joyce) has become vacant.
In a circumstance where the House has unanimously resolved that we do not know whether or not he has the qualifications required to hold office as a minister in this government, he should not be here on the floor answering questions.
The SPEAKER: I was ready to rule, but, given the issues that are at stake, I do want to hear from the Leader of the House. I don't want to cut him off.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, until such a time as the High Court decides otherwise—
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay is warned.
Mr Pyne: the member for New England is duly elected and therefore has every right to sit in the House, unless his status is chosen to be different by the High Court. As a consequence, he can be the deputy—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler is warned. I've listened very carefully to the Manager of Opposition Business. The House passed a resolution referring the matter to the High Court. The High Court will determine the matter. If the High Court determines that there is a vacancy, that's when that occurs, not when the Manager of Opposition Business raises a point of order. The member for Capricornia needs to ask the question again because I could not hear it.
Ms LANDRY: My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is growing Australia's economy by backing our $63 billion agriculture sector? What effect will alternative policies have on jobs and cost of living across regional Australia, particularly in my electorate of Capricornia?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:19): I thank the honourable member for her question—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a). I'm not proceeding until he has left. I'm quite patient, anyway.
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Mr Burke: I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no further heard.
The House divided. [14:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (14:32): As I was saying before the division—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I refer you to page 528 of Practice, which makes clear that if there is a point of order or a motion of dissent there will be a pausing of the clock, but it does not say that such a thing should happen where you have a procedural motion such as the House has just dealt with.
The SPEAKER: The difficulty the Manager of Opposition Business has is that he first jumped on a point of order.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, the Manager of Opposition Business did, because he asked whether the member should be able to do certain things in wake of the motion that had been put, and I ruled on that point of order after hearing him and the Leader of the House. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business again.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, there were two moments when I rose. The first time I rose was when the question was commenced, and it was to the Deputy Prime Minister. You made a ruling. I resumed my seat; you made a ruling. You then asked the questioner to complete the question. The questioner completed the question. The Deputy Prime Minister stood up. At that point I rose to my feet again. It was well after I dealt with the point of order and you had ruled on it. And the only thing that I did was move that the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: Okay. The clock wasn't stopped, because that has been the practice. We have time limits. Perhaps members on both sides can hear me on this; on some matters I'm happy to be in your hands, to be honest. We have time limits on both questions and answers. That's been the practice in the past with respect to questions. It's completely different with respect to other motions that are moved. I'm happy to be corrected. My recollection is that these motions were moved in the 43rd Parliament—certainly. That has been the practice. When it comes to question time—and I'm going to remind members of another matter in a second—that has been the practice. If members feel that strongly about it that they think the clock should have kept running, and that's, frankly, a device they want to use, I just caution them that that device cuts both ways; it really does.
Can I also point out—and I know that the Manager of Opposition Business well knows this—the motion he moved during question time is not often moved during question time. It can be moved on a minister giving an answer. Can I also say for the interests of clarity that, equally, it can be moved by a government minister on anyone asking the question. My interest is in free-flowing debate. I've always made that clear. So I say: be careful what you wish for. My view on the Deputy Prime Minister is that, having had that motion moved on him, the House having determined it and negatived it, it is an unreasonable restriction not to allow him to resume. That's my view, and I think that should be the practice of the House. That's my view. The Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr JOYCE: Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for that. I thank the honourable member for her question. May I say that our agricultural production has grown incredibly under this coalition government—in fact, by about 29 per cent since we've been the government. We continue to work so hard that Queensland's gross value of agriculture production has grown by 19 per cent. Agriculture under the coalition government has been one of the great success stories of this government, and we have brought the money back into our nation.
We continue to work for our nation in the building of massive infrastructure. It's very important that we understand that the inland rail—a corridor of commerce from Melbourne up to Brisbane through the inland: Seymour, Wodonga, Parkes, Narrabri, Moree and Goondiwindi—gives the capacity for our nation to grow even further. What we note as well is that, as it grows, it has the capacity for people to have great opportunities out in regional areas. We also note that the Labor Party, on the other side, have no intention of building inland rail. They have not put money towards the inland rail. It's as close as they can get to say it's a good idea.
We also stand behind Rookwood Weir. This is terribly important for the member for Capricornia and the member for Flynn. We have put $138 million on the table for that. The Labor Party, because they want green votes, are willing to flush Central Queensland down the toilet. They don't believe in Central Queensland. They don't believe in the coalminers in Central Queensland. They don't believe in the cattle producers in Central Queensland. They don't believe in the dams in Central Queensland. They believe in nothing for Central Queensland. When we ask the Leader of the Opposition to go to Central Queensland, what does he offer the member for Capricornia? Public transport. A new light rail for Alpha. I don't know what we're going to have. A new ferry across the Fitzroy River. That's about as close as we get to anything positive from the Labor Party, which used to represent labourers. Once upon a time they represented labourers, but they don't represent labourers anymore. There are no labourers over there anymore. So they've given up on labourers. That's a shame, because up in Townsville, with youth unemployment at 20 per cent, what does the member for Townsville do for North Queensland? When is she going to stand up for North Queensland? When is she going to stand up for her people? When is she going to go into bat? When is she going to stand up for the Galilee Basin? When is she going to get that coalmine out of the courts? She won't. The Labor Party have nothing to say for jobs in this chamber. They have nothing but this peculiar art form of parliamentary tactics. Why don't you start standing up for jobs?
While you're at it, we see the new taxes you're bringing in—$130 billion in taxes—and family trusts. They're going to tax family trusts. Let's see who has got a family trust in the Labor Party. The member for Sydney has got a family trust. The member for Batman has got a family trust. The member for Gellibrand has got a family trust. The member for Burt has got a good trust. The member for Wills and the member for Longman—a lot of people in the Labor Party don't believe in their own side— (Time expired)
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will withdraw.
Mr Snowdon: I withdraw but I just suggest—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will now withdraw from the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Lingiari then left the chamber.
Deputy Prime Minister
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister. Moments ago, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Bill English, has confirmed, unwittingly or not, the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia is a New Zealand citizen. So I ask again: how can the Prime Minister possibly defend keeping him in his cabinet and letting him vote in the House?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:40): The Leader of the Opposition has asked me this question before today, and I refer him to my earlier answer.
Taxation
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on the importance of creating a tax setting that helps grow the economy and reduces the tax burden on hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that pose a threat to Australian small businesses and families alike, including in my electorate of Chisholm?
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins—Minister for Revenue and Financial Services) (14:40): I very much thank the member for Chisholm for her question. She is, in fact, one of the hardest working members of this place and represents her community, particularly all of those small businesses in Chisholm, so very well. She understands the importance of getting the economic and tax settings right to help drive small businesses in our community and to help generate even more jobs throughout our community.
The government is committed to reducing the tax burden on hardworking Australians, because we know that lower taxes help to grow the economy, generate jobs and increase wages. We want to put more money back in the pockets of hardworking Australians. That's why we have cut taxes for small and medium-sized companies, and we will go even further. By reducing the company tax rate to 25 per cent for all businesses, we estimate that that will put back $750 into the pockets of workers and grow the economy by an extra $17 billion every single year. We have cut personal income tax. We have stopped more than 500,000 middle-income Australians from entering the second highest tax bracket, and we have given a tax cut to an estimated 3.1 million Australians in 2016-17. We know that lower taxes help to grow the economy, generate jobs and increase wages, and the Turnbull government has today recommitted to lowering tax. We will not allow our tax revenue to rise any higher than 23.9 per cent of our economy over the next 10 years.
By contrast, though, the Leader of the Opposition wants to slug Australians even more when it comes to taxes—$150 billion more of taxes. For any Australian who is listening to this, Labor wants to increase the tax slug on your pay packet, on your home, on your electricity, on your small business and on your investments. It seems the Leader of the Opposition is channelling the former Treasurer, Wayne Swan, the member for Lilley, with his Australia-wide tax grab based on the politics of envy. Indeed, it was reported that in last Monday's Labor caucus meeting the Leader of the Opposition singled out the member for Lilley for his great work and early thinking in this space after his recent trip to the United States, meeting with none other than Bernie Sanders. This is the same Bernie Sanders who is known for wanting to nationalise the banks, for shutting down private health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and who hasn't seen a tax hike that he doesn't like—and someone who gushes about Fidel Castro. Those on that side of the House want to hike the taxes on ordinary Australians. We will protect them. (Time expired)
Deputy Prime Minister
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:44): My question is to the Prime Minister. What is the difference between the legal advice received with respect to Senator Canavan and the legal advice received with respect to the Deputy Prime Minister? How is it that Senator Canavan has had to step aside and the Deputy Prime Minister is still here? And will he table the advice?
The SPEAKER: We've had a very free-flowing debate on this subject. I am going to call the Prime Minister, but I remind members that I'm cautious about that balance between free-flowing debate and the standing orders that prohibit requests for legal opinions.
Ms Collins interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I don't need any interjections; I really don't. The member for Franklin can leave under 94(a).
The member for Franklin then left the Chamber.
The SPEAKER: Given there have been discussions of these matters, through both questions and answers today, I'm going to allow the question. But it's very near to being ruled out by me. Can I say, many other Speakers would have ruled it out. I'm just saying that in fairness.
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Prime Minister) (14:45): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You've already referred to the standing orders about requesting legal advice, and the honourable member understands that the government does not provide the legal advice that it has received. As to the substance of the matter, I refer the honourable member to my earlier answers.
Trade Unions
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (14:45): My question is for the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important that the leaders of unions always act in the best interests of their members, particularly in ensuring that proper processes for consultation are followed? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (14:46): I thank the member for Goldstein for his question. I agree with the member for Goldstein that it is critically important that union members know how their funds are being spent.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is warned.
Mr PYNE: I mean, imagine if a union gave $100,000 to an organisation like GetUp, for example, in start-up capital that came from the AWU.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield has been warned.
Mr PYNE: You would think union members would want to know that proper processes were being followed in that $100,000 donation. But, surprisingly to me, it just so happens that such a donation was made by the AWU when—guess who?—our old friend over here was the National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union. $100,000 was given by the AWU to the GetUp organisation—an independent progressive, community based organisation—in start-up capital in 2005 to get them under way. But the Leader of the Opposition has refused to answer any questions from the fourth estate about whether the rules of the union were followed.
It's equally surprising—the member for Goldstein will be just as shocked—that, when the AWU has been asked about this, they can't find the minutes. Seems unusual, doesn't it? In 2005, they can't find the minutes of AWU national executive meetings. And, under the rules of the union, the national executive is supposed to sign off on donations like this. Maybe it's like a 'dog ate my homework' kind of example, where the Leader of the Opposition can't find the minutes and neither can his former mates.
I'm sure it's not related—it would be, absolutely, a coincidence—but not long after this donation from the AWU a company with a close association to the Leader of the Opposition gave Get-Up a $50,000 donation to tide them over. Guess who? Our old friends at Cleanevent. Cleanevent and the AWU—all supporting the GetUp organisation to get them under way. What emerges is a very tangled web between GetUp, the AWU, companies like Cleanevent and other unions like the CFMEU, all for one purpose: to stand up a supposedly independent, progressive community organisation which we know now is nothing but a front for the ALP, a front that is used to campaign against members of the coalition. It's high time the Leader of the Opposition came clean about how this donation of $100,000 came into being from his union's members. He gave their money away to help start GetUp; he needs to explain if the rules were followed.
Deputy Prime Minister
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:49): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he governs in this House with a majority of one, that he's formed that majority based on a secret personal deal with the Deputy Prime Minister and that he's allowing the Deputy Prime Minister to remain in office based on secret advice, even though the House has unanimously referred the question of his qualifications to be a member of parliament to the High Court? Prime Minister, how can the Australian people have confidence in the legitimacy of this government if it's based on a secret agreement and clinging to office on secret advice?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House, on a point of order.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, that is a question that is simply a smear and a sneer against the government. It doesn't ask for—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Ms Husar interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay will leave under 94(a).
The member for Lindsay then left the Chamber.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I'm trying to hear the Leader of the Opposition, and members on my left are preventing that occurring—the Leader of the House, I should say. And I will hear the Leader of the Opposition! If members on my left want to keep interjecting, they're just going to delay question time and they're going to have less time to ask questions. That's just an obvious consequence. The member for Bendigo might find it hysterical, but I'm not sure the Manager of Opposition Business will.
Mr Pyne: Mr Speaker, the question does not seek any information from the Prime Minister. It is simply a collection of assertions and smears, and therefore is not in order.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business, on the point of order?
MOTIONS
Deputy Prime Minister
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:50): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith—
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) today, this House unanimously asked the High Court to determine whether the Deputy Prime Minister is constitutionally qualified to be a Member of Parliament;
(b) the New Zealand Government has since confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister is a New Zealand citizen despite the Prime Minister's assurance on this matter;
(c) the Government has relied on the vote of the Deputy Prime Minister to block a Royal Commission into the banks and to block amendments to legislation which would have stopped nearly 700,000 Australians from having their penalty rates cut; and
(d) the former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia resigned from Cabinet because there were doubts over his constitutional qualifications; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to:
(a) release any legal advice it has received about the constitutional qualifications of the Deputy Prime Minister;
(b) rule out accepting the vote of the Deputy Prime Minister while his constitutional qualifications are in doubt; and
(c) direct the Deputy Prime Minister to immediately resign from Cabinet.
This is a government without legitimacy. This is a government that has had to, for the first time in the history of this country—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein!
Mr Burke: go to the High Court and ask—
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Goldstein is warned!
Mr Burke: whether or not it in fact has a majority. We've never had a government before—not once since Federation—that has had to go to the High Court because it just wasn't sure if it had a majority or not. We just had a lecture from the Leader of the House talking about lawlessness. Talk about lawlessness! We've got someone in the role of Deputy Prime Minister and we're not even sure if he's meant to be a member of parliament. We're not even sure if he's been legally, lawfully, elected. And what's the test meant to be? Whether or not he's also a citizen of New Zealand. And what does the government of New Zealand say? 'Yes, he is.' You've got the most senior people in New Zealand saying they know the answer to this.
Don't forget that, with Senator Canavan, we were told before—and Senator Canavan was made to stand aside. When he had to stand aside, he said, 'But I intend to check whether or not this has happened lawfully under Italian law,' because he believed there was doubt under Italian law as to whether he was a citizen. We've now got the Prime Minister of New Zealand saying, 'No, no, no, there's no question. Unwittingly or not, he might not have meant to do it, but he is a citizen of New Zealand.'
This could have been handled completely differently today. There was an opportunity for the government today to have the Deputy Prime Minister stand aside. There's an opportunity for the government to be able to prioritise issues—in terms of divisions while this matter is being resolved—where they're not relying on a majority of one. But, no, that's not how they operate. That's not how a Prime Minister who will say anything and do anything to be in office operates. What they're willing to do now is say, 'Who cares what the Constitution says? Who cares about the risk that we might have someone making ministerial decisions that aren't in fact lawful, that aren't in fact allowed under the Constitution? We just reckon we'll get away with it.' The extraordinary thing earlier today, right at the beginning of question time, was that the Prime Minister was telling the High Court what it would decide. What extraordinary words! Not, 'We are confident,' but we had the situation where the Prime Minister was, through his office of Prime Minister, telling the High Court what its conclusion would be.
I can say the Labor Party are confident every member of the Labor caucus has been properly elected. We have processes in place which go back to grandparents, making sure that, wherever citizenship needs to be renounced, the full requirements of the Constitution are taken into account. Do you remember the Prime Minister's description of the Greens? Do you remember what he was saying when the Greens first declared that they, the Greens party, had made mistakes of this nature? He was talking about 'extraordinary recklessness' on their part, about how hopeless they were. Prime Minister, every criticism you made about the Greens is now about you. Every single word the Prime Minister said about that party is now about the Prime Minister himself.
Senator Canavan—imagine how that poor bloke feels right now. If only the coalition agreement had been signed with him, he'd still be in the job. If only he'd been in the House of Representatives as a critical vote, he'd still be in the job. If you think about it, what's the difference between Senator Canavan's situation and the Deputy Prime Minister's situation? Senator Canavan says he had no way of knowing that this could have happened—it was done by others around him; he couldn't have known. According to what the Deputy Prime Minister said today, all the facts that have led the New Zealand government to make this decision aren't based on an additional application; they're based on facts the Deputy Prime Minister has known all his life. Yet the protection racket kicks in, and we end up having a government that will mock other parties. It has a reference for their own people in the Senate, which isn't quite the threshold that everyone else gets held to, but, at that moment when it comes to the vote that this man needs to continue to be Prime Minister of Australia, every principle is out the window.
There are Australians all around the country in a series of industries—in the automotive industry, in shopping complexes, at restaurants—all saying: 'If only he fought for our jobs as tough as he's now fighting for his own; if only he would care and put as much commitment into fighting for the jobs of Australians as he's putting in today for his own job.' This is what the Prime Minister said with respect to the Greens party:
Those two Senators knew exactly what the rules are.
Apparently the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia hadn't heard about this Constitution document. He then went on to say:
… why they wouldn't have turned their mind to it and dealt with it, is beyond me.
Prime Minister, a few things: first of all, if the Prime Minister really believed those words then how on earth can he think this is the human being who should be his second-in-charge? If he actually believes any of the words he spoke when he thought the only people at stake were members of the Greens party, how on earth can he now be in a situation where he's willing to accept somebody who has acted with that same degree of recklessness and make that person Deputy Prime Minister? There's only one reason why he'll do it, there's only one reason why this Prime Minister will make all these concessions, and that's because keeping his job is contingent on it. That's what it's about. Think of all the times this House has divided and the government has held on by a majority of one. Think of the times when every member of the crossbench has lined up on the same side as the Labor opposition and the outcome for Australia could have been different.
Not only are they unwilling to say, 'We won't accept his vote'—they're not even willing to say, 'While this is being resolved, he won't get his salary.' Every dollar of the salary has to survive during this period, where the parliament has voted unanimously that we don't know whether he's allowed to be here. It isn't like Labor did some deal, someone crossed the floor and we just got it over the line; the Leader of the House came in here today and moved it. It was carried unanimously in this House. This House has resolved for the first time in its history that it doesn't know whether or not this government has a majority—and the Prime Minister reckons it's business as usual!
Well, let me tell you, Prime Minister, it's not business as usual for the victims of the banks, who've been held back by the way you've hung onto that majority of one. It's not business as usual for the Australians who took a pay cut when their penalty rates were taken from them, when this parliament tried to fix it. What this government is doing is accepting that it doesn't know whether or not it's acting lawfully but keeping its job anyway.
The government needs to release the advice as to why the situation for Senator Canavan is different to the situation for the member for New England. Senator Canavan may or may not be a senator. The member for New England may or may not be really the member for New England. But there is another thing we don't know: this government may or may not have a majority, and yet it thinks it can govern anyway and the Australian people won't notice. The Australian people aren't going to miss this today. The Australian people aren't going to let today be something that just slips their mind when they flick the news on. Today was the day that the parliament resolved it didn't know whether or not this government had a majority, and the Prime Minister was determined to cling to power, whether it was legal or not.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (15:01): It is. Not without cause, I have often said that the Deputy Prime Minister is all hat, no cowboy, and now we are entitled to question his right to even wear the hat. We've known of the secret coalition deal for some time, but now, after 10 years, we learn of the secret citizen. Australia currently has an illegitimate agriculture minister, an illegitimate Deputy Prime Minister, an illegitimate resources minister, an illegitimate water minister and an illegitimate minister for northern Australia—all allegedly some of the Prime Minister's key interests.
Minister Canavan must be feeling pretty sad for himself today. No doubt Minister Canavan thought he was doing a pretty good job. We had a slightly different view, but certainly Minister Canavan thought he was part of a cabinet which liked him and supported him. He is, of course, a protege of the Deputy Prime Minister. He was entitled to believe that the Deputy Prime Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister might have stood beside him in his hour of need, but it wasn't the case—dispatched on the moment of confession. But it is a different story in the case of the Deputy Prime Minister. And why is that so? Well, there is one simple reason, called the numbers in the House of Representatives. That is the difference between Senator Canavan and the Deputy Prime Minister, who continues to sit in the House today with every intention of continuing to exercise his vote on behalf of the Australian community.
I can take up a lot of my time reflecting on the poor performance of this minister over the course of the last four years. Everywhere I travel in this country they're saying the same thing—
The SPEAKER: The member for Hunter will resume his seat for a second. The motion is to suspend standing orders, and the member for Hunter needs to speak to why the standing orders should be suspended. I give a lot of latitude on these motions, but he's now straying beyond why standing orders should be suspended.
Mr FITZGIBBON: Obviously it's urgent that standing orders be suspended, because we have a Deputy Prime Minister sitting in this chamber with us now, with every intention—with the imprimatur of his Prime Minister—to exercise his vote in this place, illegitimately, certainly under a cloud, until the High Court makes its determination, a determination referred by his own Prime Minister. As the Manager of Opposition Business said earlier today, you don't refer the matter if you're sure of the answer; you refer the matter if you're unsure of the answer.
I won't spend too much time reflecting on people's disappointment in this minister's past performances. But everywhere I go—and this is the urgency out in the Australian community and the reason this motion is urgent—what they're more concerned about is what the future will look like, whether they are going to be represented by a minister who has the legal capacity to represent their interests and who, over the coming months, will be making decisions in each of those portfolios which are critical to their interests. And, of course, their interests are also the Australian interests.
We recently had an outbreak of white spot disease in the prawn sector. When these biosecurity risks emerge we need someone on the watch, someone on the job with the power to legitimately deal with these issues in a legally binding way, and all those out there in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector are asking themselves whether they have such a person on that watch. As we speak there are boats sitting off the coast of China with frozen beef on board because they have been denied access to the China market. When these things occur, they need to know, Prime Minister, that they have an agriculture minister on watch who is able to deal with these issues in a full legal capacity. And those exporters of that beef today will be asking themselves whether (1) they have a minister representing them with that legal capacity and (2) whether they have a minister who is taken seriously in China and in other export markets.
Do you really believe, Prime Minister, that we are on a level playing field when you have an illegitimate minister negotiating with trading partners and when our exports are blocked off coast? The Deputy Prime Minister—and indeed you, Prime Minister—is very fond of talking about the beef sector. He—again, illegitimately—takes credit for higher beef prices. We know how funny that must be to the cockies out there, the producers. But what we do need is someone who's taken seriously on export markets, and in this Deputy Prime Minister—this minister—we certainly have no such person.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Defence Industry) (15:06): I'm sorry to say that the member for Hunter was even worse than the member for Isaacs usually is, which is really pushing the boat out there! Fancy the chutzpah of the Labor Party, to come into this chamber and lecture the Liberals and Nationals about parliamentary ethics. In the 43rd Parliament the Labor Party were the party that suborned Peter Slipper, the member for Fisher, and the party that stuck the knife into Harry Jenkins, the former member for Scullin, to get him out of the chair as Speaker to slip Peter Slipper into the Speaker's chair in order to deny the coalition a vote on the House of Representatives. It was a disgraceful and ruthless act of realpolitik. And didn't that end well? That was the record of the Labor Party in office when they thought they had the chance. They didn't think for one minute about the right way to behave in this place.
But that's not even the worst example of the Labor Party, because the Labor Party spent three years supporting the member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, in this place, taking his vote in this House when we had refused to take his vote in the opposition. The member for Dobell was backed in by the Labor Party in a disgraceful protection racket in order to save the skin of Julia Gillard, the then Prime Minister of Australia. And the person who sidled up to Craig Thomson—supported him—was the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong. So, for the Labor Party to come in here and lecture the coalition, who has done the right thing by the government, by the people of Australia, when we are behaving ethically in every respect—on every part of this journey we have done the right thing.
The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear in the House and elsewhere that we are totally confident of the status of the member for New England, and that is the very clear advice of the Solicitor-General. And nobody has sought to impugn the Solicitor-General's reputation. It is absolutely clear, however, that this area of the law needs to be clarified. This area of the law, under section 44(i), needs to be clarified. What the government has decided to do is, on the request of the Deputy Prime Minister, refer this matter to the High Court, to get a very clear ruling from the High Court about what section 44(i) means—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons.
Mr PYNE: particularly with respect to citizenship gained by descent. So, we have done the right thing, yet Labor comes in here and thinks they can lecture the government—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lyons is warned.
Mr PYNE: about us taking the right course of action to ensure that, in the public interest, people have absolute confidence in how the Constitution works, because this government is the adult in the room. Where the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party keep playing old politics, this government is the one that is getting on with dealing with issues like low wages, creating jobs, growing investment in the economy, reducing inflation, keeping interest rates low, balancing the budget. That's what sensible governments do—they deal with welfare reform and the economics of opportunity. All the opposition does is play politics day in and day out, and that's why the public are thoroughly sick of it. They are thoroughly sick of it, and that's why they continue to support this Prime Minister over the Leader of the Opposition every day of the week.
If you take the Manager of Opposition Business's logic to its logical conclusion, if a member who was referred to the High Court, such as in the circumstances of the Deputy Prime Minister, could no longer sit in the parliament until the High Court decided the outcome of that application, the government could use its numbers any time it wished to refer any member of the Labor Party to the High Court if it chose to do so. In fact, I'm sure that, if the Labor Party had that kind of power and the shoe was on the other foot, that's exactly what they would do. But, taken to its logical conclusion, if the government was unsure of winning a vote, we would simply refer one of the members of the opposition to the High Court and ask the High Court to determine their status, and, until the High Court got around to it, we'd say that they couldn't vote in the chamber. That might work in Third World Stalinist countries, one which many of the Labor members would draw their political inspiration from, but it doesn't work in a democracy like ours. That's why we will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. That's because the government—the adult in the room—is getting on with the business of government, and that's what the public expects and wants us to do.
The other reason we're not going to be lectured by the Labor Party about this matter is the Prime Minister wrote to the Leader of the Opposition today. In his letter to the Leader of the Opposition, he said, 'There are a number of cases already referred by the Senate, so it would be helpful if all relevant matters could be heard by the court at the same time.' In other words, we would be quite keen to refer members on the other side of the House over whom there may be a cloud to the High Court for determination.
Opposition members: Who?
Mr PYNE: I've been asked to name them, and I will. The member for Braddon, for example, has a much worse case than Senator Malcolm Roberts. The only difference between the member for Braddon's status in this House as a UK citizen and Senator Malcolm Roberts is the matter of months it took for the UK to write and say that both he and she were not citizens of the UK. But, on election day, neither of them had renounced their citizenship to the United Kingdom, and the only difference between the member for Braddon and Senator Malcolm Roberts is a matter of months. That is the only material difference.
There are others. Is surprises me that, if members on that side of the House had evidence of renouncing their citizenship, they would not be providing it to the media. I understand that The Courier Mail has asked the member for Longman on many occasions to prove that she has renounced her UK citizenship. She has refused to do so. If the member for Longman has absolutely nothing to fear, why doesn't she release the evidence that shows that she renounced her citizenship? What about the member for Makin? The member for Makin has been asked time and again by the press to show how he's renounced his citizenship. He says that he has, but where is the evidence that the member for Makin has renounced his citizenship? It was okay for the member for Cowan to produce her evidence. The member for Cowan, who had the potential to be an Egyptian citizen, produced the evidence which shows that she has renounced her citizenship. She's done the right thing. So, if it's good enough for the member for Cowan, why isn't it good enough for the member for Makin, the member for Longman or, in fact, the member for Braddon, who is in a worse position than Senator Malcolm Roberts? I understand that the member for Calwell has also been asked to produce her evidence to show that she is no longer a Greek citizen. They all claim that they're not dual citizens, but if in fact they have this evidence, which is apparently clearly able to be obtained, why haven't they produced it for the general public?
If the government decided to refer those members to the High Court to seek clarity about their status, would we insist that they not be allowed to vote in the House of Representatives until justice had been able to take its course?
Of course we wouldn't. We would expect their status to be resolved by the High Court, and once resolved they would be able to continue to do exactly what they had done before unless they were found to have been disqualified.
There are many more. If Labor wants to open this Pandora's box, that is a matter for them, but the reality is that there are more, and they need to prove that they are not disqualified from sitting in the House of Representatives before they start to criticise the government for being the ones that did the right thing and recognised that this was an area that needed to be clarified by the High Court in relation to section 44(i) for us to be able to have full confidence that the Constitution is fit for purpose. That's what the public expects us to do: to get on with the job. When an issue is raised, they expect us to deal with it maturely, calmly and sensibly, while all the time the cabinet and the rest of the parliament on this side of the House are serving the interests of the people: creating jobs, building investment and supporting local communities. That's exactly what we're going to continue to do, and we're going to vote against the suspension of standing orders because we want to deal with the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's citizenship laws, which is much more important than pathetic political point-scoring from the Labor Party.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The House divided. [15:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr TURNBULL ( Wentworth — Prime Minister ) ( 15:24 ): 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) (15:24): 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.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:25): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PLIBERSEK: Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney may proceed.
Ms PLIBERSEK: In question time today the Deputy Prime Minister stated that I have a family trust. That is incorrect. I do not have a family trust and I am not a beneficiary of a family trust. If I did have a family trust, it would be reported in my Register of Members' Interests.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (15:25): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Burt claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr KEOGH: I do.
The SPEAKER: The member for Burt may proceed.
Mr KEOGH: In question time today, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that I have a family trust. That is incorrect. I do not have a family trust.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Veterans and Their Families
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (15:26): by leave—As the Prime Minister has said, in these centenary years of Anzac, we best honour the diggers of the First World War by supporting the service men and women, the veterans and the families of today. It is important that all Australians understand the unique nature of service. It is important that all Australians understand what support they currently provide to our veterans. It is important that all Australians understand where our support needs to be targeted into the future.
For the men and women who serve or have served our nation; for their husbands, wives, and children; for their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers—this ministerial statement is for you. There are currently around 58,000 Australians serving in our defence forces. Some will serve overseas. Others will serve in barracks and bases around our country. No matter who they are, all of them will become veterans. In the Australian community, there are an estimated 320,000 veterans who have been deployed. Many thousands more will have seen service in Australia. These men and women have worn their uniform in both peacetime and in conflicts. They have given service from World War II to the current deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On average, our ADF personnel will serve for around 8½ years. Each year, around 5,200 will leave. Some will leave service and move on to new careers, using the skills and experience of their time in Defence to strengthen our workforce. Some will be business men and women, some will be community leaders, some may enter this parliament and some will go on to be Governors-General. However, some may not have a choice in leaving. Through medical or administrative discharge, their time in Defence will come to an end.
For these veterans, it might be the simple things that are harder. It may be that they haven't considered what the future may hold. It may also be that they carry with them the burden of service—mental health conditions or injuries that will require support. A key focus of this government is on how these men and women transition out of the Australian Defence Force. In the last 12 months, over 1,400 members of the Australian Defence Force separated for reasons not of their choosing. Ten years ago, just over 740 members separated involuntarily. How we help these men and women and provide for their transition is integral to ensuring that none of them fall through the gap between Defence and civilian life.
It is at this point that we as a government, and as Australians, can make a real difference. This task begins in the Department of Defence and continues with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Currently, the Department of Veterans' Affairs supports about 291,000 Australians. Just over half of these people are veterans or currently serving members of the ADF. Around 48 per cent are women. Around 82,000 are widows or widowers and around 2,500 are children of veterans.
Today, more than 203,000 of DVA's clients are 65 years or over while about 23,000 are under the age of 40.
This is the state of our veterans in Australia. They are representative of every aspect of service and from every walk of life. They are old and young. They are from the country and the city.
It is why, in the last 12 months, the government has held the first female veterans' forum and the first veterans' families forum. It is why we have held the first meeting of state and territory veterans ministers, to provide input on how we can work together across all levels of government on issues such as veteran homelessness.
Serving our veterans requires our government and Australians to acknowledge the various backgrounds and needs of the veteran community in order to put our help where it is most needed.
Australians should be proud that we recognise the importance of service and remain one of the only countries with an independent department to serve our veterans. The government is committed to maintaining a standalone department for our veterans.
This year, DVA will provide over $11 billion in payments and services. That includes pensions, income support, compensation, health care, rehabilitation, counselling services, transport, transition assistance, home care, housing, commemorations, education and grants funding.
Around $6.2 billion, or 54 per cent of the department's budget, will be spent on providing veterans and their families with income support and compensation.
Around $5 billion, 44 per cent of the department's budget, will be spent on meeting the healthcare needs of veterans and their families.
I am pleased to note that in the recent renegotiation of hospital agreements we have secured priority for private rooms for veterans, wherever possible.
I'd also like to note that the Department of Veterans' Affairs provides medical services to veterans and war widows by making payments to providers that are significantly higher than Medicare rebates. This ensures the widest possible availability of providers for those we serve.
Around 0.8 per cent of the department's budget will be spent on commemorations and maintaining memorials and headstones.
Over 95 per cent of the department's budget comprises payments that are legislated, fully funded and uncapped.
If there is a need, it will be funded and the department will provide assistance.
For example, in the 2017-18 budget, DVA is estimated to spend $11.3 billion but if more veterans present with eligible claims, this figure may be higher.
The department employs around 2,000 staff throughout Australia. About a third of them are headquartered in Canberra. The rest are spread across offices in each state and territory, in capital cities and regional towns.
In a typical nine-to-five, five-day week, DVA will process about 95 compensation or income support forms every hour, receive two letters or emails every minute, and take a phone call every couple of seconds.
The administration costs of the department represent less than three cents of every dollar it spends.
DVA works hard to provide quick and strong support for veterans and their families. But it is not perfect. People make mistakes. As a result, the department will not always get it right.
In this first ministerial statement on veterans and their families, I also want to reflect on what we need to do better.
Some in the veteran community have found the Department of Veterans' Affairs to be adversarial, slow or bureaucratic.
In the department's satisfaction survey, we have seen a distinct decline in overall satisfaction from 93 per cent in 2010 to 83 per cent in 2016. While this number is still high, it represents where the department could have served veterans better.
For example, at the Veterans' Review Board there were over 2,900 decisions made in 2015-16. Of these, nearly half were made to change or reverse the decision of the department.
If veterans are not satisfied with a decision of the review board, they may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In 2015-16, 223 of the 307 rulings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal were made against the department.
We know that getting decisions right the first time can make an enormous difference to veterans. We are working to reduce the number of cases that go to administrative review. This will be good news to our volunteer advocates who assist veterans with their appeals.
Recently we implemented a trial of alternative dispute resolution for veterans who choose to appeal a decision with the Veterans' Review Board. As a result, cases that may have taken up to a year to resolve have been resolved in as little as three months. We are now rolling this out nationwide.
In 2013-14, wait times for initial liability under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act were 144 days and 160 days, respectively. That has now come down to 107 and 110 days, respectively. However, permanent impairment claims have gone from 129 days and 112 days to 156 and 148 days, respectively.
This is not good enough, and the department has been tasked to improve it. The department is working on ways to leverage technology to deliver better services and cut paperwork. For example, some claims that used to take 117 days to process now take only 60 days. This is promising, and the department is looking at how we can implement this across further systems.
However, we can have a better service from DVA only if they have the tools to do the job. We have listened to the veteran community on the need to put them first with DVA. We have made the first serious investment in years into the department—$166.6 million towards making DVA a 21st century department with a 21st century service of culture. This includes a significant investment in upgrading DVA's computer systems and processes. Claims and wait times will be cut by this investment, something that is long overdue.
One of the most important services we provide is mental health support. In this first ministerial statement on veterans and their families I would like to focus on the issue of veteran mental health.
The Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs spend more than $244 million a year on providing mental health support and treatment to current and former ADF members. This includes services provided by GPs, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers and hospitals as well as pharmaceuticals and online information and support tools. It also includes access to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, which is at the front line of the government's veteran mental health support response and has been for more than 35 years.
This service is part of the strong legacy of our Vietnam veterans, whose experience has informed how we care for modern veterans. VVCS provides free and, importantly, confidential counselling and support for current and former members of the ADF and their families. It has 26 centres around Australia and a network of more than 1,100 outreach clinicians. It delivers services to more than 27,000 members of the ADF community and their families annually.
We know that the burden of mental health conditions can also fall on families of veterans. Over two years the government has expanded VVCS to include as many families as possible. The recent budget has provided $8.5 million to continue to expand eligibility for VVCS.
We recognise that as a result of veterans' service children can also be affected. In March the government allocated $2.1 million over two years to the Australian Kookaburra Kids Foundation to deliver age-appropriate mental health education to the children of veterans with a mental health condition. We know that mental health treatments work best when intervention is early. The faster we provide support to veterans, the better their chances of recovery and the better the chances for mitigating any long-term impact.
For many years governments provided mental health support only when a veteran was able to prove that their condition was caused by their service. Last year the Turnbull government decided that Australia should provide its veterans with free and immediate mental health treatment. Under the scheme, any veteran who had served one day in the full-time ADF would be given full cover for five of the most common mental health conditions: post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse and substance abuse. For the first time, an eligible veteran with one of these conditions didn't have to prove it was caused by service. From the moment of contact with the department to register their need for support, we would be there for them.
The Turnbull government has now completed this reform. In this year's budget, we have covered all mental health conditions. From now on any veteran of the full-time ADF will get free and immediate mental health cover. This program of non-liability mental health care is fully funded and completely uncapped—if there is a need, it will be met. This commonsense approach to mental health support is the biggest change in veterans' policy in decades and we must continue to build on it.
As all Australians know, one suicide is one too many. Suicide affects all areas of our community—eight Australians a day take their own life and it remains the greatest cause of death for men between the ages of 14 and 44. As we have seen, our veterans and members of the ADF are sadly not immune. We are determined to address suicide in our community. Everyone has a role to play.
Last year the government commissioned the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) to provide the first accurate, robust data ever produced on suicide among the serving and ex-serving populations. This study was independent of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This research is providing a greater understanding on where and how to help those who are struggling. The AIHW study has revealed the suicide rate is 53 per cent lower for men serving full time in the ADF and 49 per cent lower for men in the reserves when compared to the general population. In all male ex-serving members, the rate of suicide is 13 per cent higher than the general population. However, men who have left the ADF between the age of 18 and 24 have twice the risk of suicide compared to their peers.
The government will continue to independently track this data in order to provide support. This information is informing our approach to suicide prevention. The government also asked the National Mental Health Commission to review the suicide prevention services offered by Defence and DVA. Their comprehensive report told us to target four areas: (1) improving suicide prevention and mental health support for serving ADF, veterans and their families; (2) improving the transition process from the ADF; (3) improving family support; and (4) transforming DVA's systems, processes and culture.
These reviews helped inform the government's action on veterans' mental health in this year's budget, which included an additional $58.6 million in mental health funding. As part of this, the government is investing $9.8 million to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention and improve care and support available to veterans. This will include funding to increase support for those discharging from hospital and who are at risk. The Department of Veterans' Affairs also has a range of suicide awareness and prevention resources, known collectively as Operation Life.
As I have already said, the moment a member of the ADF becomes a veteran is crucial so we must do better at the transition process. Just as members of the ADF prepare for being posted to a deployment, we should prepare them for posting to civilian life. To give some idea, when a soldier leaves the ADF they may have never filled out a rental application, written a resume or used a Medicare card. We know that, for some ADF personnel, the transition period can bring significant change and with that change comes stress.
For example, until January last year the Department of Defence didn't have the capacity to notify the Department of Veterans' Affairs when a serving member became a veteran. Until a recent change in policy, DVA only knew of around one in five ADF members leaving Defence.
An important component of this is the Early Engagement Model. The aim of the Early Engagement Model is that when a serving or former ADF member needs DVA in the future, they will already be registered with the department. This will reduce claims processing times.
Another reform that will improve our processes will be to allow Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to share medical information on a veteran in order to save them from having to undergo up to three separate medical assessments.
Additionally, this government took to the last election a commitment to 'No Discharge Without Documentation'. This initiative will ensure all separating members of the ADF leave with the necessary documents to make the transition phase more seamless. This includes their medical and their training records. This ongoing work is led by a transition taskforce that was established immediately after the last election.
Veterans need to be able to walk into civilian life with confidence and dignity. This government is committed to making that happen through the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Initiative. As the Prime Minister has said, this is not about charity. We are not asking businesses to engage in some sort of philanthropic exercise. We want to remind business leaders that the service men and women of Australia have unique skills and extraordinary experience. The initiative is about helping business appreciate the unique skills former ADF members can bring to a job. Launched last November, it highlights the government's commitment to improving the support provided to veterans during their transition out of the ADF.
Through the program's Industry Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment we will develop strategies for business to recognise and transfer the talents of our veterans into post-service careers. Already over 1,000 jobs on the jobactive website have been identified as veteran-preferred and we will have more to say on the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Initiative in the coming months.
Helping our former Defence personnel find meaningful post-service careers is one of the best ways we can honour their service and sacrifice. A key reason for giving this statement is to outline how Australia can do better for its veterans. As a government we commit today to the following:
A stand-alone Department of Veterans' Affairs;
A department that focuses on the needs of the veteran first; and
A stronger voice for the veterans' community.
It is imperative that Australia continues to provide veterans with their own department. It is the best way that their service and unique needs will be recognised and provided for. However, we acknowledge that the department must focus on the needs of those it serves as a priority. Veteran Centric Reform, providing funding for the upgrade of the department's systems and an improved service culture are the first steps.
Veterans' Affairs legislation is complex. Across three acts, the support that is provided to different ages and cohorts can be difficult to navigate. Parliament is looking at how we can begin to modernise and simplify this legislation. This includes placing all the relevant acts under the control of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.
In any effort to provide support, we should also look to how we can provide payments faster. The time between making a claim and receiving rehabilitation can be lengthy. This year's budget has provided for a pilot to provide rehabilitation to veterans as soon as they have submitted their claims rather than after approval. If this leads to better outcomes—and I'm convinced it will—parliament should look to develop this model over time across the veterans' entitlement system.
Equally, we need to ensure that, when the veteran community speaks, it does so with one voice. My challenge to the veteran community is for them to respond to this statement each year with a single voice so that we can better serve all veterans. In other countries, veterans' organisations have united together into a national confederation or association, with the varied and differing needs of each group within the community putting forward their needs through a single body. I believe it is time that veterans' organisations create a similar body in Australia. If veterans can form this body and provide a response to this statement with one voice, I will ensure their response is tabled in parliament annually.
All of these are projects that will make our systems of support for service stronger. We must commit to them each year in order to ensure progress. Australia should be proud of how it serves and cares for its veterans and their families. It is a core role of any society that we serve those who have served in defence of our country and our values.
As a parliament it is our duty to watch over the care we provide our veterans, to ensure these men and women are provided for and that future generations understand their sacrifice. This ministerial statement on veterans and their families is an important part of that duty. It will be the touchstone of how we mark our service to them each year. I commend this ministerial statement to the House.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:54): Serving as a member of the Australian Defence Force involves risk and sacrifice. We have in the past and continue to ask our serving personnel to put their lives on the line and to put the needs of the country before their own. We have in the past prepared and sent many to foreign lands to fight for our nation, and we continue to do this. During the course of their service, some have been significantly wounded or injured and will carry this with them for the rest of their lives—and, devastatingly, some have never returned.
In exchange for this service and sacrifice, our country needs to support our veterans and their families now and into the future, and the government provides this support through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Known as the repatriation department and the department for repatriation compensation, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, as we know it, was established in 1976. For 41 years, their role has been to serve those who have served this nation and their families. The department exists, in part, as an acknowledgement of the commitment and sacrifice made by those who have put their lives on hold to serve our country. It exists to ensure individuals who have been wounded or injured while serving their country are not forgotten and to ensure we continue to remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. The department provides assistance to our veterans, which recognises the uniqueness of service and value of their sacrifice.
Our Defence personnel serve in the name of Australia, and, as a country, we need to ensure that their service and sacrifice, once they leave Defence, is still valued by our government, our parliament and our community. However, veterans across the country are telling me that this is not always the case. The actions taken by government and their agencies do not always result in veterans feeling that their service and sacrifice is valued once they leave Defence. Of course we do, as a country and as a parliament, value them, but we need to ensure that we consider carefully all the actions we are taking and what message we are sending to our veterans to ensure that they do feel like their contribution to our nation continues to be valued.
For many veterans I have spoken to, part of not feeling valued comes from their perspective that they have to fight so hard with the Department of Veterans' Affairs to have their claim for compensation recognised. While most of the feedback I receive from veterans indicates that once their claim has been approved they are mostly happy with the service provided by the department, the issues are at the initial stages, where people are fighting for recognition of conditions and are exposed to what they see as a lengthy, complicated and at times overly-adversarial process, which can be exasperating and disheartening. Veterans have told me that the claims process can be frustrating and complicated. And for those suffering from poor mental health, the process itself can further exacerbate mental illness. This is why Labor committed, prior to the last election, to undertaking a first-principles review of veterans' affairs.
Our proposal for a first principles review was a holistic end-to-end review of the department, based on a set of agreed first principles. The review was designed to examine the department and seek to rectify administrative, governance and process failings, to ensure the department is able to meet existing and future challenges in a clear and efficient manner. Most importantly, the review was designed to help re-establish veterans' and their representative organisations' trust in the DVA. It would ensure that we have a system in place which works for people who need it the most, and would ensure that our veterans are put at the centre. I believe a first principles review would help identify a pathway to a less contested and complicated claims process.
I recognise the government has taken a different direction and, instead, has chosen to review the department's processes, citing the core of the delays related to the antiquated and complicated computer systems, many of which are at risk of catastrophic failure. Labor welcomed the additional funding committed in this budget to improve the system. However, as I've stated on other occasions, I remain concerned that what is in the budget is not enough to properly rectify the IT issues and bring about necessary wider departmental reform. Eighty-five per cent of the funding contained in the budget will be delivered in the next financial year, which leaves the challenge of finding funding for future reform still in front of this parliament. Without long-term commitment, I believe this reform will not bring about the systematic changes that are required. Veterans are telling me this change is vital. A veteran who is wounded or injured in the course of serving our country should rightfully receive the support they need to continue to live a full and productive life. If we cannot fulfil this, then, as a country, we have not valued their sacrifice.
While there are a number of challenges that the department must overcome, I still believe that the DVA is best placed to serve the needs of our veterans. Many veterans have spoken to me about their concern that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would merge with the Department of Human Services. I understand these concerns, and I am pleased to hear the minister reiterate that this will not be occurring. The nature of military service is unique, and veterans deserve a department that acknowledges this and supports them.
Of course, responsibility to assist our defence personnel as they transition to civilian life does not exclusively sit with the Department of Veterans' Affairs; it also sits with Defence, especially for those who have been wounded and injured as a result of their service. Transition from the ADF to civilian life is an area where we need to do much better. The current process appears to be failing a proportion of our defence personnel and their families. If we don't improve transition, the act of transition itself can cause distress, inability to find work, and isolation caused during transition can lead to or exacerbate mental illness. This doesn't account for those whose service has had a greater impact on them who have been medically discharged.
Veterans have told me that, on the day of discharge, they feel that the gate is both physically and metaphorically closed behind them. This can be incredibly jarring, especially if they have not had the choice to leave. For many, they have told me they no longer feel valued and this can lead to questioning, 'What was it all for?' Imagine you have been a member of our Defence Force for some time, and something changes in your life and you have to leave. Your access to base is immediately removed on the day. You are no longer a part of that community. You need to sign in like any other ordinary civilian in order to access the defence bank branch on that base. You have to leave your defence housing on the day of discharge, whether or not you have secure housing lined up. If you have sustained an injury, your payments from the Department of Veterans' Affairs may not start for some weeks or months, but your defence pay ends immediately. In addition, there's no continuity necessarily between the treatment you were receiving in Defence and the continuity of rehabilitation services outside of Defence, and you have to reorientate your life to find a new job without a good understanding of how your skills translate to civilian employment. These actions and others during the transition process do send a message to our veterans that their welfare is no longer a concern of Defence and, by extension, no longer a concern of government, and, by extension of that, no longer a concern of the community. This period of transition is something we must do better. I acknowledge that for a majority of people their transition does occur without too many difficulties, and they do continue to live full and productive lives, but for some, particularly for those whose service has had a greater impact, we need to do better.
There are many elements of transition that require careful consideration and planning. This is particularly the case for those who, as I have said, have been medically discharged. Supporting individuals through this process does send a message that we continue to care and we continue to value them. There are many elements that contribute to a successful transition—the importance of strong social support, secure housing, financial security, family support, good physical health and fulfilling employment. As the minister has mentioned, fulfilling employment is a critical aspect of this. The government—and I do acknowledge the government's effort in this area—has instituted an industry-led board to look at how we can improve veterans' employment, and this is an important start, particularly as we do believe it is important to ensure employers understand the benefits of employing a veteran. As the minister said, this is not charity.
But if we only address one part of the puzzle, we will not fix the full picture. It is equally important that we work with veterans to find pathways to meaningful employment. We can assist them with advice and support, and by identifying skills and training gaps. To gain meaningful employment is critical to a smooth transition, and for those who would like to go onto further study, we should be proactive in helping them achieve their goals. One example that has been brought to my attention is that the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre uses time spent in the ADF, as well as rank, and converts this automatically to a university admissions score, allowing a transition to a university place.
I was recently talking to one veteran who told me that this automatic ability to access a university place had an extremely positive impact on his transition, because despite not finishing school at the time he went into the Defence Force, the skills that he had acquired in the ADF over a number of years were now recognised and he was currently studying law. This is just one example—a small example—of how supporting pathways for veterans should be replicated right across this country. Of course, university isn't for every veteran transitioning, but this is an important example of how we can assist those transitioning.
When an individual serves in the ADF, their family serves with them. Military families make sacrifices. We know that many service men and women are deployed internationally for months at a time, and this separation causes emotional stress for partners and children. When they are not deployed, there are regular re-postings to different bases around the country, meaning that these families, and these family units, may have to choose between uprooting their whole family and moving to another part of the country or living apart for some time. Post-service, particularly in the case where a veteran has been medically discharged, the impact can be significant not just on them but on their family as well. It is often the family who helps them through difficult times and supports them, and it is often partners who may become carers. It is the family who are often the first to recognise the signs and symptoms of poor physical and mental health and assist them to seek treatment. This critical role that family members play in supporting our current and ex-serving Defence personnel is often not acknowledged or appreciated as much as it should be by government and the community.
Greater support for families was an issue that was raised by a number of submitters during the current Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel. It was highlighted that family relationships are a common casualty of an individual's military service and/or the psychological wounds of one or more members of the family unit. However, these networks are often not able to support veterans themselves or each other, resulting in poor intergenerational outcomes. Many of these families highlighted how they felt overwhelmed and alone. This issue was also highlighted in the National Mental Health Commission's Review of services available to veterans and members of the Australian Defence Force in relation to the prevention of self-harm and suicide.The commission stated that they found that there was a lack of emphasis on the critical role that families play in the lives of current and former serving members, including in helping manage the risk factors for suicide and self-harm. They also noted that there is generally limited engagement with families by both the ADF and DVA. Not including families in a greater policy response ignores one of the greatest assets in assisting members of the ADF and veterans.
It is for this reason that Labor has recently committed, if elected, to develop a family engagement and support strategy for Defence personnel and veterans, a key recommendation of the National Mental Health Commission's review. This strategy will provide a national blueprint to include engagement of DVA and Defence with military families. It would also ensure that best practice support for families, Defence personnel and ADF members was consistently available across the country. After all, the greatest support for military families is greater support for our current and ex-serving Defence personnel. A family engagement and support strategy for Defence personnel and veterans seeks to address the lack of engagement and, importantly, acknowledges the critical role these family members play.
Acknowledging the part that military families play in the life of veterans continues to reinforce that we value those who put their lives on the line in service of our country. We are saying that we continue to care about what happens to you and your family post your time in the ADF. It also provides support to families to help manage those risk factors for suicide and self-harm. They, too, deserve our support and recognition.
The mental health of our veterans has very much been in the spotlight over the past 12 months, and rightfully so. Mental illness can be a significant impact of war and is a challenging area with wide-ranging impacts. It is vital that support is available to current and ex-serving Defence personnel as soon as it's needed. Over time governments have grappled with problems of how best to treat these invisible wounds, and it is for this reason that Labor welcomes the government's introduction and recent expansion of non-liability health care. Labor has offered the minister our support, not only in the creation of this program but ensuring that people are aware of this program and that it is available to everyone who has served one day in the ADF. This is an important commitment that we will continue to make.
Of course, while the recent announcement expands the ability of veterans to seek treatment, it does not guarantee access to clinical treatment, and this is particularly the case in rural and regional areas where clinical services on the ground don't exist and travel may not be desirable or possible. In addition, access to clinical services is being impacted by the government's indexation freeze on the DVA's repatriation medical schedule. The fee schedule, which is indexed in line with the Medicare rebate indexation, has remained stagnant and is acting as a disincentive for some medical specialists to provide treatment for veterans. This is a concern not just of Labor, but it has been a concern voiced by the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Psychological Association, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the Australian Institute of Suicide Research and Prevention. The introduction of non-liability health care is an incredibly important step in addressing mental health for veterans, but it is vital that these other issues of access are addressed. Reinforcing this commitment to our veterans is particularly important.
In the time I have left I would also like to touch on the importance of the role that the Department of Veterans' Affairs plays in commemorations. As we approach the end of the Centenary of ANZAC, commemorations is certainly a critical role that the department plays, ensuring that we do not forget those who have served our country and those who have fought and died for us. In addition, I would also like to acknowledge the important role that the Australian War Memorial plays in providing a space for those to reflect on the nature of service and the sacrifice made throughout the course of Australian history. But of course commemorations couldn't happen without the support of the ex-service organisations in communities right around this country. Many of them do work that results in local commemoration services. Local ex-service organisations and sub-branches ensure that our local communities have the opportunity to come together on important occasions. In many places, if it weren't for members of the ex-service community and their dedication, there wouldn't be a local commemorative service for our veterans, and people wouldn't be given the opportunity to pause and reflect on the nature of service.
Of course, commemorations are just one important part of what our ex-service organisations do on the ground. Ex-service organisations are working at the coalface, supporting veterans and their families. They also work with the department and the government to give voice to the concerns and issues affecting their membership. It is important to recognise that, for a number of different services and operations, it's our ex-service organisations that are best able to deliver advice and support. It is also vital that government and the parliament continue to work in a collaborative way with these ex-service organisations to ensure that there is no-one falling through the gaps.
I would like to wholeheartedly thank each and every group I've had the privilege to meet with. I appreciate your time; your dedication; and your feedback, especially about where we can do better, because that effort should never stop. And veterans are telling me the most important thing we can do is demonstrate that we value them. We value them during their time in defence, we value them during their time of transition and we value them as they spend their time in civilian life. This is something we must commit ourselves to doing.
I look forward to continuing my work with veterans and the ex-service community, with the government and with the department, to ensure that we are continually striving for the best outcomes for our ex-service defence personnel and their families.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security and Minister for Defence Personnel) (16:11): I thank the shadow minister, the member for Kingston, for her contribution and thank her for the way in which she cooperates in a bipartisan manner with the government on veterans' issues, and veterans and their families' issues. Thanks very much. I table a copy of my ministerial statement on veterans and their families.
Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (16:12): I move:
That the House take note of the document.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr LAUNDY (Reid—Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) (16:12): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
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.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (16:13): I appreciate the opportunity to continue my contribution on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. As I noted in my previous comments, I make that contribution as a representative of one of the most multicultural communities in the whole country and I am so incredibly proud to represent people who have come to Australia, whether they arrived six months ago or five generations ago. This bill has incredible relevance and incredible importance to those people, so I'm very pleased to make the contribution that I do today.
One of the crucial points that I want the chamber to understand about the impact of the bill before us is the contribution that is made by the different communities around my electorate, and the thing that rings in my ears whenever I consider this bill being debated today is the fact that if this had been law decades ago then so many thousands of the people that I represent in my community would never have had the opportunity to become Australians. I think that is incredibly sad, because these are people that contribute every day in different ways around my electorate. Never mind the fact that we know that migrants contribute $40 billion in taxes to this country every year. Never mind the fact that migrants are going to contribute $1.5 trillion to our economy by 2050. It's not just these financial contributions but so much more that I believe is being devalued by the legislation that's before us.
It was a great honour for me, the member for Isaacs and the member for Bruce to run a community forum to talk to people, to consult with our communities—as the government evidently decided not to do—about how to put together a bill like this. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we had about 400 people gather in the Springvale City Hall, which is right in the heart of my electorate of Hotham. When I explained the English language test—which I will get to in a few moments—to the 400 people present in the audience, they literally gasped. This was because it was immediately obvious to them that this legislation was going to have a profound impact on my current community and, indeed, on the future shape of that community. I'm very privileged, as I note is the other member who joins us at the table, to represent communities which are undergoing constant change, because the areas that we represent are a magnet for migrants—and we are very proud of that. We want that to continue, because we know that in the years which follow the incredible experience of people getting Australian citizenship, those people will make contributions. They will work hard to educate their children, and then those children will make contributions. That is the migrant story which this amazing country is built on.
I have brought into the chamber an enormous pile of paper. This pile of paper is just a snapshot of some of the petitions that were signed at this community forum. Hundreds of people stood with one voice and said: 'We do not want to see this type of change come into this country. We do not want to live in a country which has a law that effectively says that, if you cannot speak university-level English, you have nothing to contribute. That is not the country we live in.' I do wonder whether the government think they are being politically clever by putting this legislation forward, because that's not what the reaction is going to be in my community. People understand that there is a lot more content and a lot more value in Australian citizenship than simply your English skills.
I want to talk about the two aspects of the bill before us that Labor is most concerned about. The first is the English language test that I've just referred to. I want to make one thing perfectly clear for anyone who is listening to the discussion today: you need to be able to speak a level of English to become an Australian citizen today. That is current law and that is because, Deputy Speaker Coulton, as you well know, the citizenship test itself is conducted in English. You have to be able to speak English to successfully get through this test, but that is not good enough for this government. What the bill before us is seeking to do is make a change to the law so that every person, in order to obtain Australian citizenship, has to meet level 6 of the IELTS test, and that is the level of English which is required for entrance into university courses in this country. In fact, some university courses allow a lower level of English than level 6. This is an absolutely extraordinary act of snobbery, and it has nothing to do with the contribution that I can see thousands of my constituents making all over the community that I represent.
I looked into what it specifically means to speak English at level 6 in the IELTS test, and I want to read a couple of sentences from it that are basically the standard you need to meet. The test reads:
With the Cooperative Research Centre for Micro Technology in Melbourne, they are developing unobtrusive sensors that will be embedded in an athlete's clothes …
Then there are a few other clauses, which I won't read out. It goes on to read:
After years of experimentation, AIS and the University of Newcastle in New South Wales developed a test that measures how much of the immune-system protein immunoglobulin A is present in athletes' saliva.
This is ridiculous. Surely, everyone in this parliament and at home can hear that and can see that this has nothing to do with what sort of an Australian you will make. It is an arbitrary and, frankly, rank political move from those on the other side of the chamber, who I believe are making a very foolish attempt to try to bring some Pauline Hanson supporters back into their party.
Citizenship is not a plaything of this government. It is a serious, very important and fundamental institution that defines who we are as a country. I would have thought that, despite all the political tricks that I see played by those on the other side of the chamber, the government would be above this—but they're not, and it's very disappointing.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the communities that I represent just to illustrate what the impact on these communities will be. I represent, for example, the suburb of Springvale, which will be known to everyone in this chamber who comes from Victoria because it is where we all go for our dumplings and yum cha on a Sunday. Fifty-nine per cent of people who live in Springvale were born overseas. Twenty-one per cent of people who live in Springvale were born in Vietnam alone. That is on the 2011 census numbers. Eighty per cent of people who live in this suburb speak a language other than English. Clayton is Australia's most multicultural suburb, with more than 70 per cent of its residents born in another country. My electorate office is in Clayton and I lived in Springvale when I was a little bit younger. These are extraordinary places and they are so much richer for the waves and waves of people who have come to this country, seeking a better life, who wanted to set down roots and make a better life for their families. They've chosen these brilliant parts of our great country, and here we are telling them that essentially if they'd come 30 or 40 years later we wouldn't have wanted them. It just beggars belief, and frankly it is offensive.
One of the things that frustrates me so much about this debate is that the qualities and the values that I see exhibited by these communities are exactly the ones that I hear lauded on the other side of the chamber. These are communities of people who are intensely entrepreneurial. I see small businesses everywhere—restaurants, accountancy firms and law firms. These are communities of people who have worked hard, who have got themselves educated and who, by and large, have gone out and started their own businesses. So we see entrepreneurship, get-up-and-go and communities of people who don't expect that they are going to get much more help than that incredible gift of Australian citizenship if they make a commitment to this country. And now we are effectively saying we are going to take that away from future generations who could make that contribution.
I have to mention the unbelievably awful impact that the bill before us would have on refugees who come to this country. We have debates in this chamber about the manner in which you might make your refugee journey to Australia, but I don't believe I've heard on either side of the chamber people denigrate the contribution that refugees make to our community. Refugees make great citizens. As members of parliament, we get to give them their citizenship. You see people crying because they have made decades long journeys to this country, just trying to come to a place where there is democracy and where they will have their human rights respected. The reality is that, for a lot of people who have spent much of their lives fleeing persecution and who may have missed many years of their schooling, they may come to Australia and study their whole lives and never be able to speak university-level English. What we are saying here is we are going to pretend to offer an opportunity for refugees to make a new life in this country but we are going to cut off their pathway to citizenship. I cannot think of anything more offensive than telling a person who has planned for decades to try to come to a country like Australia that, once they get here, because their English skills aren't fancy enough and they may not know what 'immunoglobulin' means, they are not going to be able to make a contribution to this country. It is wrong, it is offensive and Labor stands against it.
One of the arguments that's been put forward by the government is that this has something to do with national security. I really object to that. That is the sort of thing that we hear from this government whenever they want to put something beyond debate, and we are not going to take that bait. We are absolutely not going to that bait, because this has nothing to do with national security. What our security agencies tell us time and time again is that the best way to make our country safe is to bring people in and create an inclusive society where young people who may be at risk of radicalisation feel that they belong. If we were designing a law to do the exact opposite, I think we'd come quite close to what is before the chamber today, which again makes an attempt to draw a horrible, arbitrary line between people who belong in our country and people who do not.
I am proud to represent a community of people who have left their countries to come here to build a better life in Australia. They have done extraordinary things; they make an incredibly important contribution. I just want to say to those people that Labor value what you do. We want to welcome that next generation of people who may migrate to our country and do exactly what you have done—and that is to make us a better place.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:24): The Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is important legislation because it affects not only the lives of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people already in this country but the lives of many more to come. The term 'citizenship' is vaguely defined. I guess citizenship started off in the Roman days, when it effectively meant that someone was entitled to be politically included in their decision-making, and it meant that they were full members of their society. That's probably where it really started. But its meaning has never been clear. The Australian Constitution makes no reference to Australian citizenship. It does not mention or define it, although it was discussed at length in the constitutional debates.
So what does Australian citizenship imply? Prior to 1949, it simply didn't exist. Residents were referred to as British subjects. Aliens could of course be naturalised by going through a similar process to that involved with citizenship today. After World War II, following in the footsteps of Canada, Commonwealth countries, including Australia, discussed citizenship and national identity at a conference in London. Following on from that, Arthur Calwell, Australia's immigration minister, introduced the Nationality and Citizenship Bill in 1948, and Australia's first citizens were sworn in at a ceremony at the Royal Albert Hall here in Canberra in 1949. The explanatory memorandum to the 1948 bill refers to citizenship as establishing a national identity, diplomatic protection, and rights and privileges, but says little else about its meaning. Arthur Calwell's second reading speech, however, provides some insight into what was intended. In speaking about the Nationality and Citizenship Bill, Calwell said:
It will symbolise not only our pride in Australia, but also our willingness to offer a share in our future to the new Australians …
He went on to say:
We want to … foster and encourage our young but very vigorous traditions of mateship, cooperation, and a fair deal for everybody.
This legislation is completely at odds with those sentiments and the spirit in which Australian citizenship was first introduced.
Since World War II, around 7½ million people have migrated to Australia. I understand that, of those, around five million, perhaps just a little more, have taken up citizenship. Notably, around 2½ million—that is, one in three migrants—did not, or have not yet, become Australian citizens. Right now, it is estimated that there are over one million permanent residents who are eligible for, but have not taken up, citizenship. The relevance of those figures is to highlight how the Turnbull government is overstating and overreacting to the importance of this legislation. The reality is that citizenship makes little material difference to a permanent resident's life. A permanent resident is entitled to welfare support, Medicare and public education, although university education for noncitizens is at risk under the government's higher education amendment bill, which is currently before the House, where the government wants to change the Commonwealth supported places program.
The main benefits of citizenship appear to be the right to vote, an Australian passport and employment in selected government agencies. Those benefits were clearly non-essential to over one in three permanent residents that chose not to take up Australian citizenship. The other important perceived benefit is security from deportation. It is a very fragile security, because section 17 of the Citizenship Act provides the basis for the minister to revoke citizenship. One would expect that any person deserving deportation would clearly have breached section 17 of the act. If the argument is that the minister's revocation powers should be extended—and that is a reasonable question to ask—then let us have that debate, rather than the pretentious debate that we need to protect Australians from would-be citizens. That is what this legislation purports to do by, amongst other things, making it more difficult for eligible applicants to be granted citizenship. It does that by introducing a much more difficult English competency test, a four-year permanent residency requirement and an Australian values test. No explanation has been provided as to how these changes will benefit Australia or where the existing test has failed Australians. We are simply expected to rely on the minister's opinion.
Our national leaders, and indeed many others, have frequently claimed that Australia is the most successful multicultural country in the world. If that is so, then it has occurred despite a so-called tough citizenship test and not because of it. On current estimates around five million Australians hold dual citizenship or have dual citizenship rights. Furthermore, since 1986, applicants when taking the Australian citizenship oath do not have to renounce any other allegiance that they hold. Interestingly, other Australians, who are born here, are not entitled to apply for dual citizenship. So we actually have double standards. A person who holds another citizenship doesn't have to renounce it and can continue to hold their other citizenship, thereby maintaining an allegiance to another country, whilst the Turnbull government feigns concerns about a person's inability to pass an English competency or values test. It's an absurd proposition to take. The government's priorities are clearly wrong. When there is more concern about a person's English language competency than about their dual allegiance, we have our priorities back to front.
It seems that the government will allow exemptions from the test for UK, Republic of Ireland, US, Canadian and New Zealand migrants. Apart from the obvious discrimination towards several other English-speaking countries, there is a huge assumption in that proposition being made by the government that all migrants from the exempted countries have fluent English and show Australian values. I would suspect that there are many people in each of those countries who are themselves in turn migrants to those countries in the first place. They may have acquired citizenship once they arrived there and they may now wish to migrate to Australia. But if they do, they will be exempt. In my view they will be little different to the people that are applying and that currently live in this country and have come directly to this country from any country other than the UK, the Republic of Ireland, US, Canada or New Zealand. I accept that is a matter for the minister, and we wait to see what he will do.
That brings me to the point that this bill seems to be filled with matters over which the minister has an incredible amount of control. Again, that appears to be wrong, in my view. I accept that many of those matters will be dealt with through regulations, and the parliament always has the opportunity to oppose or reject regulations. But the very fact that those matters are going to be matters directed by the minister is in itself of concern.
The term 'values', which is quite often used, is a very vague, subjective and changing concept. I suspect the values of the Australian people 50 years ago were very different to what we would consider them to be today. More importantly, and what should matter, is that in their time prior to applying for citizenship applicants have complied with Australian laws. That is the real test of their assimilation and understanding of Australian society, because it is our laws which reflect and clearly define our values, and compliance with them reflects a person's commitment to being a good citizen and their understanding of Australian values.
The most discriminatory aspect of this legislation is that in recent years, and even more so over the last decade, around 50 per cent of migrants to Australia have come from Chinese Asia and Southern Asia. They are the people who will be most affected by this legislation and clearly they are the people whom this legislation is targeting. When you take out from all of our migrants the Chinese Asians, the Southern Asians and then migrants from the English-speaking countries that I referred to earlier, it doesn't leave much else. Legislation that targets a particular sector of society because of their background is racist. The legislation has not been cleared by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and it may not be. Indeed, it may not even comply with the Racial Discrimination Act. I have not had time to try to ascertain whether it does, but it seems to me on the surface of it that it may not.
If the legislation were passed, thousands of potential citizens who had set out a pathway to Australian citizenship under existing laws, which they believe they were complying with, would find themselves stranded, because the Turnbull government, for politically motivated reasons, wants to shift the goalposts. I understand that some 81,000 people have already had their applications put on hold before this legislation even becomes law, effectively meaning that this legislation is being backdated. I understand that the department is not processing applications lodged in recent months.
I want to go, for a moment, to the four-year residency requirement. Again, this is an absurd situation. A person that is in this country, regardless of the visa type, has ample opportunity to adapt to and understand the ways of this country. It doesn't matter whether it's a permanent visa, a working visa, a student visa, a holiday visa or whatever; it is the time spent in the country that matters, if at all. Indeed, if we go back through history and look at the prerequisite for Australian citizenship in the past, it has varied from five years, to two years, to three years, to four years and so on. In each one of those measures there is no evidence that those numbers made any substantial difference to Australia.
A person's allegiance to Australia cannot and should not be measured by their ability to pass an education test, be it in language or values. If it were, many Australians born here would very likely also fail that test, yet they are not being denied full participation in Australian life. More importantly, it is not the ability to pass a citizenship test that the government should focus on but the screening at the entry point into Australia, regardless of the visa class. That is where the greatest focus should be if the government has any security concerns whatsoever. We had 8.3 million tourists or thereabouts that came into this country last year. We have anywhere between one million and 1½ million other visa-class holders here at any one time, yet the government wants us to believe there is a problem with people who want to become citizens and swear allegiance to this country. That's not where the real concerns should lie.
In summary, there is no justification for this legislation whatsoever, and the government hasn't produced any. There's been no security advice to support this legislation and the need for it. There is no evidence that citizenship is creating any kinds of problems and no security advice that the changes proposed here will make Australia a safer place. There is no regard in this legislation for thousands of people who have commenced the citizenship journey using an alternative visa pathway. There is no concern for the people who have made Australia their home and will work hard, pay their taxes, abide by our laws, but never have the confidence to apply for citizenship, and no concern at all about the creation of an underclass of Australians. I have not seen a single submission in support of this legislation, but I've seen numerous opposed to it. In closing, this legislation has shades of Australia's discarded White Australia policy, which ended 50 years or so ago. It is offensive, it is discriminatory and it is driven by a government that is struggling in the polls and wants to whip up unfounded fear and concern. This legislation should be rejected, because it flies in the face of the Australian values that the government claims it wants to uphold.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (16:39): I had some difficulty believing that the previous speaker could really believe in what he was saying. It is quite extraordinary to me. In Queensland, where he comes from, there's most certainly no Labor government; there's a Greens government. Their policies are very much in line with those of the Greens.
When you see me walk into this chamber, through those doors, you will always see me salute the magnificent painting of Charlie McDonald. He was the first member for Kennedy and the third Speaker in this place, and he was one of the proud founders of the Labor movement. In sharp contrast to the last speaker, he said, 'We don't want migrants to come into this country and take our jobs off us and undermine our pay and conditions, because we don't—'
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr KATTER: That is exactly what you were saying, sir. That is exactly what you were saying. Every single sentence that came out of you prompted more migrants to come to this country. You want the barriers lowered and removed. We're talking here about increasing the barriers, making it more difficult to come to Australia, reducing the number of people coming in. Let the people who are desperate for jobs in your electorate know who is responsible. Who was bringing in 650,000 people a year? Not the Liberal Party. It was the Labor Party.
Charlie McDonald, that great man out there, would turn in his grave. Seventy-two of his fellow citizens in the Kennedy electorate died in an explosion at Mount Mulligan. Twenty-five died in an explosion at Mount Leyshon. That was in my home town of Charters Towers. We died like flies because of the corporates that owned the mines and treated us like dogs, so we fought for our pay and conditions. No sooner did we get our pay and conditions, win arbitration, because of great men like Charlie McDonald than the corporate classes brought in the coolies to work the mines and the Kanakas to work the cane fields. Our arbitration commission wasn't work two bob, because they had people who were going to work for nothing in the cane fields and the mines and who couldn't have cared less really, in a collective way, about our conditions. One in 30 of them died in the cane fields. One in 30 of them, strangely enough—ironically enough—died in the mines.
Yet the champions of more migration, including the last speaker, are the Labor Party. Those migrants are the ones putting the pressure on welfare in this country. If you are going to continue to bring 650,000 people a year into this country, all of them able to work—there are no restrictions upon section 457s or student visas; they can all get jobs here—and there are only 200,000 jobs being generated in the country, and over 200,000 school leavers, you don't have to be Albert Einstein to figure out that you're going to go bankrupt real quick.
When I asked this question of Prime Minister Abbott, five days later the minister for welfare in the government said that welfare was going to explode from a quarter of the budget to half of the budget. Well, of course it is! If you're bringing 650,000 people a year into this country and there are only 200,000 jobs and over 200,000 school leavers, of course the welfare budget is going to explode. But 'bludgerigars' that come into this place are not worried about adding up; they are just worried about pleasing some part of their constituency.
The people of Australia are starting to wake up and the Liberal Party is starting to wake up, but Labor are living in the Stone Age. They're quite literally living in the Stone Age. They proudly boasted about bringing in 650,000 people. I am told that there are now only 350,000 people, not 650,000, coming into the country. I think, under the circumstances, the Liberal Party should be applauded.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we are bringing these people in from countries that have no rule of law, no democracy, no egalitarian tradition. Much as I love Indians, people from India, they do have a very rigid class system and most certainly have rule of law and democracy. But it was in the paper the other day that in the past 55 years in Pakistan not a single prime minister or president—whatever it is—has completed his term in office. Whatever their values are, they're not the values of this country.
Finally, there is the Judeo-Christian underpinning of our society. You may not believe in God; you might hate religion; but I think all of us would probably agree we're brought up in a background of love your neighbour, you have responsibility to your neighbour, you have responsibility to produce something for your fellow man. Those things are the essence of the Christian and to some degree Judeo value system.
So are we going to bring all these people in—no democracy, no rule of law, no Judeo-Christian background, no egalitarian traditions? As the member for Makin said, Australia is changing. Too damned right it's changing. You read quotations in the history books, the description of Australia in the 1950s, and you would be proud to be an Australian. Those characteristics were true, those books and their images were true, and we could be very proud of what we had achieved in this country.
If you are bringing in people that are totally different, we are going to have a totally different country. I don't want it to be different. I'm pretty proud of the way it is, and I'm pretty happy with the way it is. I don't want it to change. Heaven only knows that my electorate is an amalgam of ethnic minority groups—the Afghan cameleers were very significant; many of my friends are their descendants—but those migrant groups that came to Australia came here to be Australians. They fought with their fists to become Australians, and they were accepted as proud Australians. The people coming here today don't come here to become Australians—no, no, no. They think we should become them, not the other way around.
So I think the government deserves praise here. I sat in a CFMEU dinner, and that very great Australian, Michael O'Connor, made a comment to the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, about that union, the most powerful representative of working people in this country. I have mentioned on many occasions that I'm proudly a member of the CFMEU and have been a supporter for most of my life. He said, 'This union will no longer brook the bringing of section 457 visa workers to this country. Do you understand what I am saying clearly, Madam Prime Minister?' We sat down to dinner and there it was on the menu, the dish in front of us. It said, 'No more section 457s'. They are undermining our pay and conditions and taking our jobs on a massive scale. To the shame of the Labor Party in this place, they were the people that introduced them. In fact the Liberals introduced them, but they were bringing 30,000 in. The Labor Party kicked that up to 150,000. It was quite right that the biggest representative of employees in the country was taking a strong stance. That's why so many people are trying to join that union now and amalgamate with it.
In conclusion, what if the developmental policies of the tiny little party that I belong to were being implemented in this country? I can simply mention that if you build a railway line into the Galilee coalfields you will create 40,000 jobs. We've reached a stage in this country where we don't refer to the Galilee; we refer to Adani. Therein lies the problem—development depends upon foreign capital and foreign ownership. It didn't in my day. Under the much-maligned Bjelke-Petersen government we owned all the railways, proudly; we owned all the electricity, proudly; and the people of Queensland owned all the ports, proudly. I might add that, to the shame of the Labor Party, most of the sales were under the Labor Party in Queensland, not the Liberal Party. I'm sure, if the Liberals had been there, they'd have been selling Grandmother's false teeth. But they weren't, so it was the Labor Party who sold the assets.
All you've got to do is to build a government-owned railway line into the Galilee. There are 26 tenement holders there, and all of them would like to open up their mines. Well, they sure aren't going to open them up with the noose around their neck—with one corporation owning the railway line. In actual fact, that railway line will not open up the Galilee, it will close it down—the same as the decision by the Liberal government in Western Australia, to quote Twiggy Forrest, closed down iron ore expansion in Western Australia for 25 years. The government wouldn't build a railway line. Successive Labor governments in Queensland, proudly Labor governments, built the railway lines, and then they were doubled and quadrupled by the incoming Country Party government, of which I proudly was a part.
We can provide for you 40,000 jobs there, immediately. We can build the STaDSS scheme on the Herbert River and the Hell's Gate scheme on the Burdekin River for you and provide you with another 40,000 jobs. So 100,000 jobs you can create with the flick of your fingers. The two latter projects will supply 10 per cent of Australia's petrol needs and four per cent of our electricity requirements—all super-clean energy, with no CO2 emissions whatsoever. And that can be done tomorrow, if the two major parties in this place—although they're ceasing to be major parties—realise, for one moment, that they can do what their forebears did and borrow the money to invest in development and not in self-indulgence, building massive freeways around cities and tunnels in cities. As the great economist John Quiggin said, one thing that can be said about Queensland governments is that they most certainly have tunnel vision. Brisbane is the most tunnelled city in the world. Next year, it will have 30 kilometres of tunnels. Sydney, with five times their population, has only got 14 kilometres of tunnels.
You might say that's a good thing. Yes, it is, except that the state is being bankrupted, and they're tripling electricity charges to get the money to pay for all this self-indulgence, instead of investing the money in projects like Galilee. Invest in the Galilee coalfields—half Australia's coal—and those two giant water projects and you'll get your money back. You'll get $3 billion or $4 billion back every year through payroll tax, through income tax and through mineral royalties. That's why the Queensland government was easily the most successful government in Australian history. We must pay great tribute not just to the politicians but to the great public servants who were responsible for that—I refer particularly to Sir Leo Hielscher.
If you undertake these projects, you can afford to bring migrants into this country. But, would you please bring in migrants who want to become Australians, who do not want us to become something different. I venture to suggest that, if you go to the CBD areas of Sydney or Melbourne, you will see people who look forward to an Australia that is not Australia but is their country with all the values and systems that they have and, in the main, no democracy, no rule of law, no Judeo-Christian philosophy—love your fellow man, sacrifice yourself for your fellow man, build good things, do good to your fellow man. They are different entirely to that: get ahead, beat the other bloke, be out in front, own everything.
What I'm saying here is that we were able to bring people in who wanted to become Australians, no matter where they came from in the past. We are bringing in numbers now that we can't possibly afford with a no-development government. They say there's no money for development. Twenty-five billion dollars a year has been taken out of superannuation— (Time expired)
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (16:54): I represent one of the most multicultural parts of Australia. More than half the people who live my electorate were born overseas. That's more than almost any other electorate in this place. It means I go to a lot of citizenship ceremonies, and, like all members of parliament, I love going to them. It's one of the best parts of our job. When I speak at these events, I tell new citizens that they're part of a long history of migration.
Except for the first Australians, we're all migrants or the descendants of migrants, and it's not just a story of British migration until the last few decades. The First Fleet had people from other parts of the world. There were former African slaves from the United States who fled with the British after the revolutionary war who were on the First Fleet. Arthur Phillip, the first Governor of New South Wales, was half German. The first Chinese migrant, Mak Sai Ying, arrived here in 1818—a good decade before my first convict forebear. He married a woman named Sarah Thompson, they had a bunch of kids and he ended up running a pub called The Lion, in Parramatta, not far from my electorate. That's the sort of story that's repeated itself time after time after time over the last two centuries—people who have come here from all parts of the world, some with barely two bob to rub together, and made a go of it and made a success of it.
Of the miners who rose up under the Eureka flag in 1854, there were people there from more than a dozen different countries, including Finland, Jamaica, Italy and Sweden. Among the soldiers at Gallipoli, there was a bloke called Billy Sing. His mum was English and his dad was Chinese. He was a sniper. He was the best the Anzacs had. His actions saved countless Australians on that rugged peninsula. If you go down the road from here and visit the War Memorial, you'll see a place littered with names. It includes the names of people who weren't born here but died for us. That's Australia. They're the sorts of stories that I like to tell at these citizenship ceremonies.
I also tell the story of an 18-year-old Vietnamese refugee who fled Vietnam after the fall of Saigon, being shot at as he left, and I tell the story of a 17-year-old Vietnamese girl who fled with her sister and one change of clothes. She made it to Malaysia where she was put in a UN refugee camp. She spent the next 10 months there until, one day, someone said, 'You're going to Australia.' Those two teenagers didn't know each other then, but they soon would. Soon after arriving in Australia, they went on a blind date at Bondi Beach. A few years later, they were married and had kids.
Those two Vietnamese refugees are my mother-in-law and father-in-law. If this legislation that we're debating here today was in place all those years ago, they would never have been able to become citizens of this great country. That's because what the government wants to do here is change the law so you can't become an Australian citizen unless you've got university-level English skills. That counts my mother-in-law and father-in-law out. They can speak English—their English is pretty good—but is it university level? No, and it never will be. But, I tell you what, they're good Australians, and, like thousands and thousands of other people who've come here over the decades, they've learned a new language, they've got a job, they've raised a family and they've made a go of it. They've even set up their own business. These are the sorts of people who we should be congratulating. This legislation says that they shouldn't even be citizens. How on earth could I vote for that? How on earth could I vote for something that says they shouldn't even get a vote? How could I?
How could I look my little boy in the eye when he grows up and tell him that I voted for something that meant that his grandparents shouldn't even be citizens of Australia?
I don't want people to get the wrong impression here; I understand how important English is. English is critical if you want to succeed in Australia, and I see how important it is in my own electorate. In Blaxland, in south-west Sydney, the unemployment rate is double the national average. It won't surprise anyone in this place that it varies depending on how good your English language skills are. The unemployment rate amongst people whose first language is English is about five per cent. In other words, it's around the national average. But, among people who don't speak English very well, or at all, the rate of unemployment is about 25 per cent. That tells you how important English is. The better your English, the better your chance of getting a job, the better your chance of getting ahead and the better your chance of integrating properly into our society. But that doesn't mean we should be denying people citizenship because they don't have university-level English skills. It means we should be doing more to boost these skills. It means providing more English language training and making sure people finish the skills courses that they start. This legislation doesn't do any of that.
It's important to make the point here that the test to become an Australian citizen is in English. So, to become a citizen, you already need to be able to speak English, and read and write it. You just don't need university-level English. Now apparently, unless you can write an essay, unless you can write a university thesis, you're a threat to national security. That's the argument the government's making here. That's what Peter Dutton, the Minister for Immigration and Border Security, the future Minister for Home Affairs, has said—that this is all about national security. What a joke! What a joke!
In the last parliament, in the previous government, I was the Minister for Home Affairs. I held that job for two years, and, throughout all of that time, no-one told me that we need Australian citizens to have university-level English skills in order to make this country safer. And the people who are advising this government are the same people who advised me. None of them ever made that argument to me.
If this is about national security, where's the evidence from ASIO? Where are the recommendations from the AFP? Where's the advice from the department of immigration that this is necessary for national security? It doesn't exist, because it's not about national security. That's just a made-up argument to make the government look tough. It's about politics. If anything, this sort of legislation has the potential to make us less safe, because what this does is divide us into two groups: a group of Australians who are citizens or could become citizens, and those who know they never will be citizens. And, for that second group, knowing that they can never, ever become Australian citizens is going to make them feel like they're not one of us—like they don't belong. When that sort of thing happens, well, that's very dangerous. That's when bad things happen, and we've seen plenty of evidence of that recently overseas.
The fact is that this is not about national security. It is just wrapped up to look like national security. The reality is that it's about politics. The government are behind in the polls, and they think this makes them look tough and they think this is going win them votes. But my response to that is: if you think this is going to win you votes, then think again, because there are a lot of people in this country like my mother-in-law and father-in-law: people in their 60s, 70s and 80s; people who came here in the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s; people from places like Greece, Italy, China, Vietnam, Serbia, Croatia and parts of South America—people who have come from all around the world in the last few decades.
Twenty-eight per cent of Australians were born overseas, and a lot of those people don't speak perfect English. But, I'll tell you what, they work damn hard, they've paid their taxes and they've voted a lot of times over the years, sometimes even for the Liberal Party. Some of them live in marginal seats, like Banks, Reid and Chisholm. This legislation is a slap in the face to them because what the government is saying with this legislation to all of those people is that they think they shouldn't be citizens, that they think that they shouldn't even be allowed to vote. Well, that should go down well! That should go down real well in all those marginal seats. Good luck convincing all of those people from all around the world who have lived and voted here for decades that you don't think they should be citizens and that you don't even think they should get a vote on election day. I think when they find that out this government are going to have a lot of trouble convincing them to vote for them again. Don't worry, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons—we'll be reminding them what this legislation is all about. We will be saying to voters: 'Do you have university-level English skills? No? Well, Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal Party think that you shouldn't be a citizen. Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal Party don't even think you should get a vote on election day.' Let's see what happens then.
This is a big mistake by this government. One hundred years ago they wanted to stop people coming here by using a dictation test. This isn't that, but it's certainly using similar techniques. That might have been popular 100 years ago, but it's not going to work now because we are a different country to that. This is bad law. It's bad for national security and it's bad politics. If the government don't get it now—well, boy!—they'll work it out soon enough, because this is not good for national security. No-one's going to be safer because of this, particularly not marginal Liberal members of parliament. If this government were smart, they would back down from this at 100 miles an hour. But I don't think they're smart enough. They should back down from this before they do more damage to our community and before they do more damage to themselves. But I know they won't do that, because I don't think they even realise what they're doing to our community or to themselves yet—but they will. They'll work it out eventually, except it will take an election for them to work out what a mess they have made of this. I'm proud to represent my community, a multicultural community, one of the most multicultural communities represented in this place. I will be very proud later this day to vote down this terrible legislation.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (17:08): I'm very pleased to follow my friend and colleague the member for Blaxland and that the member for Greenway and the member for Werriwa are in the chamber as well—three other Sydney MPs who represent multicultural electorates and who are proud of the fact that Australia is the nation that we are today because, with the exception of the First Australians, we are all descendants of migrants, be they British migrants or migrants from all over the world who have come to make Australia their home.
When I see a bill which is aimed at an existing law, my starting point is always: what problem is it trying to fix? If something's broken then it is the responsibility of this parliament to intervene, to create new laws, to update the laws of the nation and to make sure that laws become fit for purpose. But this piece of legislation—indeed, even the very title of the bill, including the word 'strengthening'—implies there is something weak about the existing arrangements. We're asked to accept that being able to speak conversational English is no longer sufficient for people to become Australian citizens. This is snobbery of the highest order. We'll now require people to pass a university-level English test—a test which, frankly, I would question whether members of this House would be able to do. We're asked to accept that being a law-abiding citizen who has lived here for four years is no longer enough to justify the privilege of Australian citizenship. Under these changes, people would be required to demonstrate that they possess Australian values and that they have integrated into our community.
Now, I am always pleased to keep an open mind when it comes to legislative amendments, but the truth is that there is no evidence that this legislation is necessary. It didn't originate in the bureaucracy. It certainly didn't come from our national security agencies. It has its genesis in the ideological obsession of some of those opposite in the Liberal Party—a Liberal Party that is prepared to play politics with issues of our national citizenship. To me, the issues of citizenship, national security and law and order should be taken very seriously indeed. What they shouldn't become is a plaything for the Liberal Party's internal divisions—divisions based upon some in the Liberal Party who hark back to a golden era of white picket fences, an Anglo Saxon culture being predominant in this country, a lack of diversity and a lack of modernism that has made Australia the successful nation that we are today. My fear is that this legislation is all about the culture wars, where the Prime Minister has been prepared to just throw out all the things that he knows Australia needs. He is prepared to throw out decades of conviction that he has held in order to appease the culture warriors in the right wing of the Liberal Party.
This is an extraordinary proposition that has come before the parliament, which is why we have referred the bill to a Senate inquiry and why the member for Watson has moved such a comprehensive second reading amendment to it. There have been no arguments put up for its adoption. Let's just have a look at some of the issues which are specifically created by this legislation. Firstly, there is the issue of the English tests. The fact is that the tests which people currently sit for are, of course, written in English. The existing courses teach what is known as competent standards under the International English Language Testing System. The proposed change means that what would actually be required to be competent in English would be a university level of English, which would change the whole dynamic. One of the great privileges that we have as members of parliament is attending citizenship ceremonies. What we have then, as in my part of the world, is people from all over the world—Asia in our region, South America, Africa and Europe—who come to pledge their allegiance to this great nation. It is extraordinary the emotion that people feel. There is no better place to be in Australia than at Enmore Park on Australia Day, on the afternoon of those citizenship ceremonies. There are tears, there are hugs, there are people proudly waving the Australian flag, there are speeches and there is a huge gathering of the family and friends of those people who are becoming citizens on that day. It seems to me to be quite remarkable that the legislation before us is aimed at making the process harder and longer before people can enjoy those ceremonies. That flies in the face of what we should be doing as a nation, which is encouraging people to declare their allegiance to Australia—encouraging people to become full citizens and to participate fully in the civic life of this country.
These people currently pay taxes and they work damn hard in this country. If you have a look at the sorts of people who do these jobs, menial work in particular, whether it be in the agricultural sector or whether it be cleaning our offices here in this building, you see that they tend to be people who have come to Australia to make a better life for themselves and for their families. They don't ask for much. What they do ask for—and what they expect and what they deserve—is respect. And that is what this legislation does not give them. This legislation changes the parameter of the debate from one in which we're encouraging people to become citizens to one in which we're thinking up barriers to citizenship and barriers to that civic participation, including voting—which may well be the motivation of those who are putting forward this proposition.
The extraordinary thing about the requirement for university-level English is that none of the proposals put forward by the government speak about an increase in funding to assist people to learn English. Indeed, the changes to the Adult Migrant English Service and other organisations and the attacks on TAFE have undermined participation by community members. We don't expect people to have a PhD in English in order to be citizens, unless we're deliberately putting the qualification bar so high that we are excluding people. Another issue in the bill is the extension of the time for people to be eligible to become citizens.
It is interesting that national security agencies haven't even been consulted on the issues in the legislation. We take a bipartisan approach to national security issues. I had another briefing this morning about transport security. I've worked very constructively with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, on all the issues that have been raised in recent times about threats to our security, and Labor has never played politics with these issues. But there is no national security justification for these moves.
This, of course, goes to Australian values. Australian values are about respect for democracy and respect for the rule of law. We're also talking about the Australian value of the fair go. The truth is that the fair go is given short shrift by this legislation. The legislation also gives the minister the right to set aside Administrative Appeals Tribunal findings concerning character and identity if the minister believes it is in the public interest. Labor have reserved our position on that. We want to see some evidence, though, that that is necessary, and that's one of the things that we'll consider through the Senate process. The process up to now has been atrociously handled by the government, with a sham community consultation process. There certainly hasn't been adequate consultation with the communities who will be directly affected by this. Multicultural leaders who go out and promote Australian citizenship have had that process undermined.
Today, a day on which the great Les Murray, one of the champions of multiculturalism in this country, is being farewelled at St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney, is a day on which it is timely to remind the House of the contribution that people who've come from across the world have made to Australia. Les Murray, who came here as a young boy in 1957 in the wake of the Hungarian uprising, put down by the Stalinists in 1956, made an incredible contribution to turning football into the amazing participation sport that it is in this country today. He was also a constant advocate of multiculturalism and, from such humble origins, an iconic figure in this country. Indeed, he became a character in popular culture with the TISM song, What Nationality is Les Murray?—one of my favourites, where the chorus is 'Les is more'—because everything about Les Murray was larger than life, and I think that his contribution should be valued.
We have heard a lot about Australian values, and part of that is respect and inclusion. I do want to make a brief comment about the rejection by Waverley Council and the Land and Environment Court recently of a planning proposal to establish a Jewish synagogue at Bondi. This is a very poor sign for our country. We cannot allow the threat of terrorism and violence to stop people being able to practise their faith, whatever faith that is. Whether it be a Jewish synagogue, or an Islamic mosque, or a Catholic Church, or a Buddhist temple, people have a right to practise their faith in this country. We shouldn't ever, ever concede that because some would threaten a particular faith or group of people in our society we should allow those threats to be successful. I think that was quite an appalling decision, and I want to put on the record my opposition to it.
Australians are made up of people of different religions, different ethnicities, different racial backgrounds, different genders and different sexualities, but we make Australia what it is today—this great melting pot—through citizenship. I think that we should support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Watson, and the government really needs to reconsider where it's going with its approach to Australian citizenship—it should be something that we're advocating, not something that we're making harder.
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (17:23): I rise to speak against the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill. I do so for a number of reasons, and I join with all of my Labor colleagues, of which there have been many, who have come into this place one after the another to place on the record their disagreement with this legislation. I note the absence of speakers from the government—they have not shown up in this debate to place on record their support for this. One could only deduce from this that the legislation does not have much support, but I can only postulate why hardly any government members would rise to speak on a piece of legislation that the minister himself claims is dire for our country's national security. By the way, Labor has provided and continues to provide bipartisan support on issues of national security. This legislation comes without recommendation from our national security agencies whatsoever. It is a grubby, dirty and deceitful power grab by Minister Dutton to placate their preference dealer—Hanson—and the far right wing of the Liberal Party. And all of this has been done with the absolute sham of a community consultation process that the Liberals won't even release the findings of. You would think they would be at least transparent on that, if they had support. Again, it is just another fine example of the Liberals shutting down public debate and discussion around this matter.
If we look at the changes that Minister Dutton wants to impose, and there are many, the one I want to focus on here and now is the introduction of the English test—the English level 6 test, which is the IELTS, at a university-standard level of English. It is absolutely absurd. We on this side of the House, in the Labor Party, are committed to assisting immigrants to learn English and attain a language level that allows them to take full advantage of all of the opportunities and benefits available to make them productive and contributing members of the Australian community. It is the ethos, the absolute ethos, of the 'fair go for all' that is one of the greats strengths of our multicultural society. The government like to play that card in the community. However, they never practice what they preach. Here is the government's fair go: you need to have university-level English to pass this test. The government should do whatever they can within their means to help people to learn English, as the member for Grayndler has just said, not use it as a sledgehammer to scare and intimidate people who want to come to our country or people who are in our country trying to live a decent life.
The government should be well aware there is a level of isolation and extra challenges that come for people in their own lives if their English skills are limited or English is their second language. If you had any compassion, you would know it is about helping and training people. The Turnbull government is sending a message not just to new immigrants but to all Australians who do not have university qualifications, and that is: if the Liberals had their choice, these people wouldn't be here.
There are a number of people who will never pass the English test. Our concern is that this will develop an underclass of people in our country, people who will always live here but will never be able to pledge allegiance to Australia and will be told that they do not belong. This is the most concerning thing. I have constituents who are not only concerned but scared as a result of this proposed legislation. One example I have is of a married couple from St Mary's in my electorate. The husband is an Australian citizen and his wife has been a permanent resident for 15 years. I will paraphrase some of the letter. It goes to the heart of how mean and callus this government is, and how worried they have made decent, hardworking, honest people feel. My constituent's wife applied for Australian citizenship on 23 June 2017, having been a permanent resident for 15 years. He has been an Australian citizen for 30 years. They were advised that the processing of citizenship applications has been adjourned as the government wishes to strengthen the requirements for citizenship. As the processing is suspended, getting citizenship is delayed for unnecessary reasons. Quite reasonably, my constituent states: 'I consider this unfair and un-Australian. I don't know what your idea is about it. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand and support the need for strengthening our laws to safeguard our way of life and, importantly, this peaceful country. However, this process of stopping the processing to an unknown time is unfair.' These people have been in our country for 15 years. I ask the minister: if they were a national security threat, why didn't we know about it before now? Is putting her through an unnecessary English test going to make her less of a threat, after 15 years of living as a resident in this country?
The letter goes on to say: 'I fear my wife will have difficulties in passing the English test as it requires a competent level of the language skill, as opposed to the previous basic level of the English language. She would be able to understand the citizenship test in English and she could pass the test without any issues. However, expecting a competent level of the English skill is a little pessimistic.' Now I will quote the letter directly: 'This requirement will not helpful in any way to the aim of the strengthening of requirements. There are some many people who does have very basic English skill, but contributing to Australia by working menial jobs and paying their share of taxes.' Clearly, my constituent is one of those people whose level of English is fine to send me an email. He can spell quite fine but his grasp around context and also grammar is slightly lacking compared to what perhaps would be considered perfect. But he is politically engaged to the point where he knew to send me an email. If we've got people who want to come into this country and who want to participate in our democracy, they should be allowed to. He makes fair and valid points.
So, what was the response from government and the department to his concerns when he made contact with them? When I contacted the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, they did not have any answers, they just replied that they do not have any instructions from the government and were waiting for the same. That is not good enough. Why wouldn't the minister explain the current position of the bill and why hasn't the department taken interim action to allay the concerns of people like my constituent? The department should have at least explained the current position of the bill. But, as we have seen in this debate, the government has hidden and nobody wants to speak.
I also offer this: I am a proud granddaughter of Polish migrants who came here after World War II—and, yes, my citizenship is fine. They arrived on New Year's Eve and they were taken to a camp in Cowra before making their way to Penrith, where my father would eventually be born. My grandparents came here without any English whatsoever. My babcia—which is the only word I know in Polish, which is the word for 'grandmother'—was removed from her family at 14 by Nazi soldiers and placed in a work camp. She never saw her family again. My babcia worked here in Australia as a cleaner in the local school. She raised seven children, worked and paid taxes, and—there's nothing more Aussie!—she drove an orange Datsun. She longed for and missed her homeland. She didn't come to Australia with much choice. Her country was ravaged by war. She missed her home, her family, and the things that were familiar to her, all while grasping a new language, a new culture and a new life. But this didn't stop her from learning English, and she participated in Australia's way of life.
When she migrated she was told to assimilate, which meant she didn't have the opportunity to pass on the language, the culture, the traditions and the history of her country. This has impacted my life. I can't speak a word of Polish, I have no clue as to where my family were from. I know nothing about the Polish tradition and culture, and, now that I'm a parent, I would dearly love to be able to pass some of that on. These are the fears that I hold when we tell people who come to our country that they need to be just like us. The languages and traditions have never been passed on to anyone in my generation. My babcia has passed away now, sadly, and I'm left seeking so many answers about my heritage and the origins of my own story. This government should be encouraging the sharing of culture and encouraging our newest Australians to become bilingual—not by punitive methods, but by supporting.
When I look around my community, what do I see? I see that 21 per cent of the community I represent were born in another country. Thirty-five per cent have parents who were born in another country. I see cars that are Japanese, Russian vodka, Italian pizza, Turkish kebabs, Brazilian coffee, American movies, German beers, clothes made in India, oil from Saudi Arabia, Chinese electronics, and our numbers are Arabic and our letters are Latin. So why, then, would this government seek to demonise people who want to call Australia home by demanding a test that many in this House, including those on its own benches, would have difficulty in passing, including the Deputy Prime Minister? This test is not about national security—it's about fear and it's about dividing our country. It's about turning us into bunch of elitist snobs who shun anyone who wants to come here and contribute to our country. And what does this test say to Australians who were born here who cannot pass level 6 English? What a shame Minister Dutton has no mirror for reflection to enforce the level 6 English test on his own government colleagues.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (17:32): It is an honour to follow so many terrific Labor colleagues in talking about our very real concerns about the citizenship changes that the government has proposed and put before the House in the form of the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill. As I understand it, I'm the last speaker from our side of the House, but, as the member for Lindsay just mentioned in her contribution, many members from our side of the House—many more members on this side of the House than on that side—have spoken about the government's proposed legislation. That's because citizenship, migration and multiculturalism are articles of faith for us on this side of the House. We're proud of Australia's deep and enduring multicultural heritage.
If you listen to all of the contributions that people have made from this side of the chamber in the last little while—as you have, Deputy Speaker—you hear some pretty extraordinary stories about people's own heritage, people's own background, the sorts of trials and tribulations of our own relatives and people who we know and live amongst—our neighbours and friends—and the sorts of trials and tribulations that people go through in order to arrive in Australia, and then to ensure that they are taking up the maximum benefits of being in Australia by becoming an Australian. We all see that in our citizenship ceremonies and all of the other occasions that we are afforded as members of parliament to see the very best aspects of Australian citizenship. To be there at the moment that somebody becomes a citizen is a really treasured opportunity, and I know that I don't just speak for this side of the House on that point. Our position on these bills is to make sure we're saying to new Australians, those who have been here a bit longer or those who might aspire to Australian citizenship that we take our responsibility of ensuring the right arrangements very seriously. We want to take the time to deliberate, discuss and get to the bottom of the motivations for some of these changes, and to make sure that, if we are going to support or not support something that the government proposes, we do so for the very best of reasons.
Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you know my electorate, next door to yours. On Friday I was at Mabel Park State High School. They opened a really terrific initiative called the United Cultures Centre. The United Cultures Centre was effectively an Indigenous yarning circle, but the students, on their own initiative, had put around the yarning circle all of the places of origin of the different students who attend Mabel High. It's one of the most multicultural schools certainly in my electorate and definitely around the country. I felt motivated by that, to know that young people understand something that probably doesn't always dawn on this government—that is, we should be doing what we can to be more inclusive with our citizenship arrangements and our broader laws that emanate from this place. We need to make sure we are as inclusive as possible.
We have three major concerns with this legislation. They are the reason we're voting the way we are. We want the Senate to look more deeply into some of the other issues, because we are concerned that some of the proposals in this bill do not create the right kinds of citizenship arrangements for an inclusive, tolerant, forward-looking multicultural society. As all of the people who've spoken on this side have said quite eloquently—and my colleague the shadow minister is here—we don't think that the English language test is appropriate. To ask people to have university-level English is a pretty extraordinary thing. If we had applied that throughout our history, you can imagine the sorts of great Australians that we would have denied ourselves and the dynamism that they contributed to this country. But it is not just the English language test; there is also the issue around the waiting period. As the member for Lindsay said in her contribution, people are already living here anyway. We should be looking for ways to get them to sign up to our way of life, laws and customs at an earlier opportunity, not making them wait longer for that opportunity. They are already here. The capacity to do the wrong thing is already available to them. We want to get people signing up and contributing as Australians.
The third point is on the arguments about national security. We're not convinced these proposals in the legislation are relevant and necessary to the important task of maintaining our national security. We don't think it has necessarily come from the advice of the agencies or from a good place. We are worried that the motivations of the Prime Minister, in announcing these changes, are not what they should be. It might've been due to—the minister has joined us at the table—a sop to an internal political rival. It might be a way to chase One Nation votes. We're worried about the motivations of this legislation. When they first announced they were going down this path, we said we had an open mind, because we want to use these opportunities to bring people together and not to further divide our community. Our concern is that, consistent with all the other areas—marriage equality, inequality in our broader economy—this government has taken an opportunity to bring us together and, instead, is driving us further apart.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (17:38): I thank all of the members for contributing to the debate on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. The amendments in the bill will strengthen integrity and increase public confidence in the program. Our citizenship laws define who is, and who can become, an Australian citizen. It is wholly appropriate for the citizenship program to be reviewed and updated, just as we are continually re-evaluating and recalibrating other aspects of our migration program. This is fundamental to a prosperous and cohesive society. The 2015 final report of the National Consultation on Citizenship, entitled Australian citizenship: your right, your responsibility, indicated strong community support for strengthening the test for Australian citizenship. Australia's success as a sovereign nation is underpinned by a commitment made by all Australians to a law-abiding, peaceful and open society. The Australian public expects aspiring citizens to commit to Australia and Australian values. Australian citizenship is a pledge and it is a privilege taken by people that all of us should respect, both those born here and those who elect to join our community.
Regrettably, Australia faces a real and increasing threat from people who embrace violence as a means to pursue extremist beliefs and ideology and therefore reject the values fundamental to Australia. We should have the necessary levers to ensure that such individuals do not benefit from the great privilege that is Australian citizenship. It is in the national interest to do so. The government remains committed to ensuring that our citizenship program is appropriately calibrated for the complex domestic and global environment that we are in this very day. The proposed changes to the citizenship program will ensure that the system is better designed to support those with a strong commitment to Australian values and a desire to integrate and contribute to become citizens.
The amendments in the bill include increasing the general residency requirement, allowing more time to assess an aspiring citizen's experience of integrating into life in Australia, and the standalone English-language test at the competent level. English-language proficiency is essential for economic participation, social cohesion and integration into the community. They also include the requirement for aspiring citizens to sign an Australian values statement asking them to make a commitment to act consistently with those values of respect, equality and freedom; a strengthened citizenship test introducing an aspiring citizen's understanding of Australian values and the privileges and responsibilities of Australian citizenship; and the requirement for an aspiring citizen to demonstrate their integration and contribution to Australian society, pledging allegiance to Australia and the Australian people, elevating the importance of the commitment the aspiring citizen is to make to Australia.
The member for Watson, in his address, criticised the process for assessing competent English and the department's process for accepting people in comparable English-speaking nations as meeting the English-language requirement for administrative simplicity. Those countries include the US, the UK, New Zealand, Canada and the Republic of Ireland. The member did so in some quite offensive terms. It is important that the House notes that the countries he mentioned are exactly the same as those that were included during Labor's time in government for the competent English assessments for migration purposes, including while the member for Watson himself was minister. In fact, my department advises that the Labor government did make a change to those countries the member for Watson referred to, clarifying that Ireland refers to the Republic of Ireland. That change was actually made by the member for McMahon.
The truth of the matter is that, as exists now and did under Labor for migration purposes, there are relevant and sensible exemptions for English language. Australia has changed a lot over the years, as has the nature of employment. There is no denying that English language is crucial for integration, employment participation and settlement outcomes, as the member for Watson and other members of the opposition reiterated in quite clear terms prior to this debate. I make no apologies for setting high expectations in our national interests, which are in our best long-term interests and the long-term interests of those aspiring citizens. However, over 70 per cent of people sitting the general training IELTS test for immigration purposes were assessed as competent or higher in 2015.
The member for Watson and some others opposite also argued against increasing the time of permanent residence. As members opposite well know, there are different requirements for attaining permanent residency and different entitlements than for someone who is on a 457 visa or a working holiday-maker visa, for instance. Under Labor, a 457 visa applicant wasn't even required to provide a police clearance certificate or any overseas criminal history check. The only check was by self-declaration. Yes, the changes may have meant a longer period residing in Australia, which is a privilege in itself, before visa holders could make the step to apply for citizenship. But what the member for Watson failed to acknowledge was that since the coalition government came to power there has been an approximately 1,200 per cent increase in visa cancellations for people committing serious crimes against our citizens. This includes over 150 visa cancellations for child sex offenders, over 40 for murder, 20 for manslaughter, nearly 100 for rape, nearly 200 for armed robbery and over 380 for other violent offences. In total, 1,106 were permanent residents. That is since 2014 alone. People have also had permanent visas cancelled on national security grounds on the advice of intelligence agencies during that time. Under the Labor government, many of these people may now be citizens.
The risk remains, given the argument of the member for Watson to keep residency requirements to a minimum before a person can apply for citizenship. This may be in the interests of elements of the Labor Party, but it is not in the national interest—nor is it in step with comparable countries. As the department advises, the United States has a residency requirement of five years; Germany, eight years; France, five years continuous residence; and Denmark, nine years continuous residence.
Australian citizenship should be highly valued, and the government's changes will ensure that it is a privilege obtained by only those who have demonstrated the most sincere commitment to Australia and our values, and respect for our laws—as it should be. The amendments in this bill ensure that there is an understanding that everyone has a responsibility to contribute to Australian society as a whole.
I take the opportunity to present an amendment to the explanatory memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, incorporating the regulation impact statement for the information of members.
In summary, I do believe that the bill deserves the support of all members . I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [17:50]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
The SPEAKER (17:55): Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately? Leave is not granted.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (17:55): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
The House divided. [17:57]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (17:59): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
The House divided. [18:00]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment 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) (18:03): The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017 contains a series of amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act to rectify a series of unintended consequences of the sunsetting regime. There are some technical changes to the legislation to prevent management plans from being automatically revoked if regulations that give effect to them are appealed. We obviously don't want to have a situation where—and the government has realised that it would be a serious problem—by repealing a series of regulations, we automatically and unintentionally revoked entire plans of management for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Under current legislative arrangements, whenever the regulations sunset and are remade the plans of management are automatically revoked and no longer exist. This would mean, for example, there would be no management in place for high-volume tourism areas such as Cairns and the Whitsunday Islands. Revocation of the plans of management would mean abandoning current arrangements that support and underpin the tourism industries in those sorts of areas. If they are revoked as a result of sunsetting, it would also mean the legislative process to have them remade would be required. Whereas the regulations can sunset and be put straight back in, the moment you try to put back in a plan of management there is an entire process of consultation that needs to kick back in, which would leave us with a period where plans of management were effectively switched off and of no effect. The plans would not be enforceable until regulations are remade, at which point the plans become operational again. Obviously, when sunsetting provisions were put in place for the regulations, it was never with this consequence as part of the intention.
Plans of management are generally prepared for intensively used or particularly vulnerable groups of islands and reefs and for the protection of vulnerable species or ecological communities in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Plans of management complement marine park zoning by addressing issues specific to an area, species or community in greater detail than can be accomplished by the broader reef-wide zoning plans. Plans of management are a key tool that are used by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to help protect and conserve intensively used areas of the marine park while allowing for a range of experiences and types of use for those who want to appreciate an area. At the moment, there are four plans of management within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park—the Cairns Area Plan of Management, the Hinchinbrook Plan of Management, the Shoalwater Bay (Dugong) Plan of Management and the Whitsundays Plan of Management—currently being reviewed.
Of course, it's an irony that, at the exact same time that the government has realised the dangers of revoking management plans in the Great Barrier Reef, the government is seeking to destroy management plans in the Coral Sea, is seeking to destroy management plans all around the oceans that surround Australia and, in fact, is currently engaging, with respect to the oceans, in the greatest removal of areas from conservation that any government in the world has ever undertaken. What's happening in the oceans right now under this environment minister is something that never happened under the Howard government and never happened under the Fraser government. Those are principles where people, quite rightly, have said, 'Once an area is protected, even if it was contested at the time, there will, from that moment on, be no backward steps.' That is why, when Joh Bjelke-Petersen lost the fight to be able to drill in the Great Barrier Reef, the view was: you've lost that fight—it's over. That's why, when Bob Hawke saved the Franklin, the Daintree and Kakadu, the view was: that's been done; that's been settled. In a similar way, that's why, when John Howard, to his credit, put a whole series of zonings across the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the view then was: that's it; that's settled—there will be no backward steps.
That's not how the government is behaving with respect to our exclusive economic zone. As I said, there are countries in the world which have previously taken areas out of conservation, but it's not really a list that you'd want a country like Australia to be on when you see the countries of the world that have taken areas out of conservation. It's not only not a list you want to be on but also not a list you want to top. This government at the moment is engaging, in the oceans, in the greatest removal of areas from conservation that the world has ever seen. No government, no matter how dodgy, has ever tried to do anything like what this government's currently doing in the oceans. So, when the government does something like that with respect to the oceans, we will fight, and we will fight hard. When it does something perfectly reasonable, as it's doing right now with respect to the Great Barrier Reef, we will support these actions because they do avoid an unintended consequence, and it's quite appropriate legislation.
However, we won't allow there to be a debate about what happens in the Great Barrier Reef and, because the tiny change in front of us is a good one, won't be willing to also debate all the issues around the health of the Great Barrier Reef itself. This is why I'm moving a second reading amendment. I'll move it now, then I'll say a few words about it. I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) the Government is failing to protect Australia's iconic Great Barrier Reef by:
(a) failing to act on climate change;
(b) supporting the Liberal National Party in Queensland in blocking reef protections aimed at halting the broad scale clearing of trees and remnant vegetation; and
(c) winding back ocean protection, put in place by Labor, around Australia and specifically in the Coral Sea; and
(2) this Government cannot be trusted to protect the Great Barrier Reef and fight for Australia’s unique environment".
The Great Barrier Reef is under threat from all sides. The management plans we're talking about deal with the specific acreage of the reef itself, but you'd have to be kidding yourself to think that, if you simply act on the reef, you can do all the things that are required to protect the reef.
When the Great Barrier Reef was first put on the World Heritage List there was an argument that so long as we look after the area itself—stop the threat of drilling—the outcomes will be okay. But now, with what's happening to the health of the Great Barrier Reef, we know that if you deal only with the acreage of the reef itself you'll never fix the problem. You need to protect the reef from every side. You need to protect it from above, protect it from the left and protect it from the right. I've spoken already about the Coral Sea. That's protecting it from the right. That's about making sure that the rich biodiversity on the right-hand side of the map—the cradle for the Great Barrier Reef—is given protections, not having a situation in which you've got the reef here and the moment you fall off the shelf the longliners are allowed in. That does not provide the same level of protection.
If you want an example of how you establish the fact that putting areas into protection in the ocean actually provides a real positive outcome, the answer's simple: have a look at what John Howard did in the Great Barrier Reef. I'm very happy to acknowledge when the Howard government did things that were good. This was one of them. And now, years later, the science is in. When people say , 'There's no evidence as to what actually happens when you lock areas up', well, sorry: there is. The evidence is what happened when the Howard government did it. That decision was made, I think, in 2002, from memory. Now the scientists have been able to go back and look at the same areas and look at what happened in the areas that were designated as no fishing and what happened in the adjacent areas. In the areas designated as no fishing, the improvement for a species like coral trout, for example, was an 80 per cent increase in the biomass. Some of that's small fish; some of that's bigger fish. But it was an 80 per cent increase in the biomass in the protected areas compared with the unprotected areas.
That's why many of the recreational fishers supported the zones when they came in. Some opposed them, but it didn't take long before they worked out that the place to catch the biggest fish was right on the edge of them, because they work. They do deliver a healthier ocean. So you get an 80 per cent improvement in the biomass in these areas. That's what we need the Coral Sea to provide, as the cradle for the Great Barrier Reef. Instead, the government's currently proposing to gut half of the area that was put into marine national park—half of it. Look at the impact on Osprey Reef, on Vema Reef, on Marion Reef, on Shark Reef—some of the top dive sites in the world, protected. And now this government—they haven't done it yet, but they're down the track—are making clear that they want to take not simply a backward step but the largest backward step any country's ever taken in terms of the area under conservation, and to do that in the Coral Sea, the cradle for the Great Barrier Reef.
But that's protecting the Great Barrier Reef on its right-hand side. You've also got to protect it on the left. And this is where the changes to land-clearing rules that have been put to the Queensland parliament are so important. Land-clearing events change how much run-off there is, which then changes, in terms of the Great Barrier Reef, what sediment comes in every time there's a major weather event and what chemicals come in every time there's a major weather event. Most of the farmers and graziers there have done a really good in participating in government programs that we started and that this government has continued in order to improve their work, to engage in landcare work, to engage in intensive farming practices—highly scientific—that radically reduce their chemical use. But at the same time that they are doing the right thing, they've got a handful of neighbours—not that many, but enough—who are doing absolutely the wrong thing and engaging in large-scale land clearing and completely undoing the good work not only that good farmers have been doing but that the Australian taxpayer has been funding. Yet the Liberal National Party in the Queensland parliament has consistently blocked the changes to those land-clearing rules, no matter what the outcomes are for the Great Barrier Reef, no matter what the outcomes are for Australian tourism and no matter what the insult is to those farmers and graziers who do the right thing.
And then you've got to protect the reef from above. We often talk about ocean acidification and connect it to climate change, and it is actually not connected. Ocean acidification is caused not by climate change but by the causes of climate change. When we talk about the ocean being the largest carbon sink, we think, 'Great news, the ocean is a good carbon sink.' But that is the good news and the bad news. The way it becomes a carbon sink is by turning the CO2 into carbonic acid, and in turning the CO2 into carbonic acid in that process where it acts as a sink, we get the acidification of the ocean.
What does that mean? It means that when the same coral gets hit by a major weather event or a bleaching event it grows back more slowly; it grows back in a more brittle fashion. It is also competing with the fact that the chemicals it's dealing with—because of what is happening with land-clearing laws—and the sediment it's dealing with mean the fight is that much harder. So, in an awful way, because 'perfect' is hardly the right term, you get a perfect storm of bad influences on the Great Barrier Reef. You get ocean acidification, meaning the coral grows back more slowly; increased chemicals, nutrients and sediment, meaning the coral grows back more slowly; and then increased intensity of major weather events, meaning the coral gets knocked out more often. And that is all before you even get to the issue of climate change.
Given the position of the lectern, one of the sceptics of the parliament is going to follow me and give his own view of the science, and I respect his right to do so in the parliament. But you don't have to get to climate change before all of these threats are real and verifiable and dangerous. When you do get to climate change, you then have the issue of major heat events. And I know the argument that goes, 'These last coral bleachings are completely coincidence.' I've got to say, it's happening to coral reefs around the world; we've just got the biggest one. It's happening to coral reefs around the world.
No matter how passionate our debate in this parliament is, we can't undo the fact that, whenever the scientists have presented projections on what would happen to the Great Barrier Reef, exhibit A when we've seen the actual impacts has been at the worst end of those projections. And that's been the consistent story. So, yes, people can always argue the toss about the projections and try to get inside the science and come up with an argument that might work rhetorically for the sake of a speech. But there is the ultimate control group going on here, the ultimate control group which is the greatest living thing on earth: the Great Barrier Reef. And that ultimate control group keeps answering the question.
I could have given a very different sort of speech today on the Great Barrier Reef. When something is as alarmist as this, the government deserves some pretty strong rhetoric. But I've got to say, I don't want the political debate; I just want it fixed. I don't want the political point; I just want to have a Great Barrier Reef that's healthy and that continues. We in this chamber talk a lot about inequality. It's hard to think of many worse examples of inequality than the concept that our children and grandchildren won't get the environment that we get. It's an extraordinary level of arrogance that would let any of us think that, somehow, we've got the entitlement to enjoy it, profit from it, and wreck it, and they can just put up with the consequences.
So I urge the government: it's not on the World Heritage List for nothing. It's one of the prized possessions on the World Heritage List. I remember meeting with the World Heritage Committee when I was environment minister. They said if they were to start the list and were allowed only four things on it, this would still make it. You can't have natural heritage without including the greatest living thing on earth. So I simply urge the government: stop fighting against responsible protections on land clearing. Don't undo the protections in the Coral Sea. Act on climate change and act on the causes of climate change. If we continue to allow a situation where the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases without limit, without cap, then the outcome's really simple. It doesn't matter how we negotiate around the chamber, the reef itself will come to the negotiating table and prove itself to be the most uncompromising negotiator of all. I don't want that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Giles: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (18:20): I am pleased to speak this evening on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017. Anyone who has visited the Great Barrier Reef or seen pictures of it can't help but be amazed by its crystal clear waters, its picturesque tropical islands, its beautiful sandy beaches, its abundance of marine life, its colourful tropical fishes and the most spectacular coral formations in all colours of the rainbow. Anybody who sees that simply cannot help but fall in love with our Great Barrier Reef. No wonder it's considered one of the wonders of the world. We all in this parliament want to do everything we can to protect it. If we think it's in danger, all of us want to do everything we can to protect the reef.
But its breathtaking beauty is a double-edged sword, because it makes the Australian public highly susceptible to misleading and emotional scare campaigns about the reef, similar to what we just heard from the member for Watson. On these misleading campaigns, we only have to go back to last year and some of the headlines that were being put out across the internet about a bleaching event that occurred. News.com said—this is the headline—'The Great Barrier Reef is dead at the age of 25 million years.' The Independent in the UK said, 'The Great Barrier Reef is declared dead after a long illness.' Perth Now wrote, 'The record coral die-off wastes 70 per cent of the reef.' The ABC, our ABC, had a headline saying, 'Two-thirds of the northern Great Barrier Reef is wiped out. The Barrier Reef dead after being clobbered by the worst bleaching event in history.' We saw the ABC use pictures of what they claimed was bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. In fact, it was a picture of a reef in American Samoa.
This scaremongering sends the message out across the world that the reef is dead and is not worth visiting. It harms our tourism sector. It harms all those Australians working on the reef that rely on international tourists wanting to come and see the reef. Some people are out sending a message 'The reef is dead.' What did the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority say about some of these headlines? I quote: they said they were 'ridiculously exaggerated' and 'irresponsible'. Dr Reichelt, the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said, talking about these misleading scare campaigns: 'I don't know whether it was a deliberate sleight of hand or a lack of geographic knowledge, but it certainly suits the purpose of the people who sent it out.' It was a completely misleading campaign. It was fake news. Yes, there was a bleaching event on the reef, but the claim that the Great Barrier Reef was dead was simply fake scaremongering news designed to mislead the Australian people and to get them to make emotional and irrational decisions. When we are dealing with the reef, we need to deal with the science and the evidence.
What was not reported was that the Great Barrier Reef is actually divided into four separate management areas: the far northern zone, the northern zone, the central zone and the southern zone. When they talked about bleaching of the reef, they were actually only talking about the northern zone, which is only 11 per cent of the area of the Great Barrier Reef. So, while it's true two-thirds of that part of the reef was bleached, this only accounts for seven per cent of the reef in total being bleached. What is not explained in any of these articles is that 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef's tourism is located in the central and southern zones. How were they affected by the bleaching last year? Remember, 97 per cent of tourism activity takes place in these zones. Well, only one per cent of the southern zone, which is 44 per cent of the reef, suffered a bleaching event—one per cent. In the central zone, which is 22 per cent of the reef, only six per cent of the reef was affected. In total, 98 per cent of the southern and central zones, which is a total of 64 per cent of the entire reef and where 97 per cent of the reef's tourism activities take place, was not affected. So only two per cent of the area with all of the tourism industry was affected from the bleaching event last year, and yet we had claims and stories going out worldwide that the reef was dead.
We can learn from past events, because the Great Barrier Reef did suffer a significant decline in coral cover from 1985 to 2012. This was caused by various things. There were the severe tropical cyclones, there was damage from the crown-of-thorns starfish, and there were also two previous bleaching events in 1998 and 2002 that were associated with El Nino patterns. The comments of Professor Ridd, an expert in the area, on those bleaching events back then are interesting. He said the findings did not take into account one of the worst cyclones to hit and affect the reef—Cyclone Hamish, in 2009, which wiped out half of the reef. Professor Ridd wrote:
Coral recovers fast; six years on and more than one-third of that total loss would be alive and flourishing. And guess what, cyclones are part of life’s natural cycle.
Lady Elliot Island Eco Resort owner Peter Gash said:
The scientists made out the Reef is half dead, but they picked a moment in time when a fierce cyclone had tracked down the length of the Reef and did enormous damage.
I challenge anyone to go out to where Hamish hit—it has almost all completely recovered.
In fact, it has. The science tells us that, between 2012 and 2015, the Great Barrier Reef recovered and actually increased in size by 19 per cent. So the gains that we had in coral growth between 2012 and 2015 were greater than the bleaching losses we had in the previous year.
A second important point, if you read the headlines, is that bleaching is not the death of coral. Again, I quote Professor Peter Ridd:
Bleaching is one of coral's defence mechanisms and should be regarded as a strategy for survival rather than a death sentence. Gradually it stops them—
the coral—
from dying. Most corals that bleach fully recover … A survival mechanism such as bleaching indicates that corals have adapted to periods of unusually high temperatures in the past.
They are the words of Professor Peter Ridd. Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you went out to the Australian public today and asked them, 'Does bleaching coral mean that coral dies?' I would say that 90 per cent of those people would say, 'Yes, that's what it means.' But the science tells us otherwise. Professor Ridd—and I quote directly from him—also said:
Mass bleaching also occurred on the Reef in 1998 and 2002, but the vast majority of the corals on the Reef have recovered and survived.
Bleaching is not just a recent event. Again I quote Professor Ridd:
Bleaching was first recorded early last century by Sir Charles Maurice Yonge in the first major scientific study of the Great Barrier Reef.
He noted:
… there are 26 records of coral bleaching before 1982.
Professor Ridd concluded:
Due to the remarkable mechanisms that corals have developed to adapt to changing temperatures, especially the ability to swap symbionts, corals are perhaps the least endangered of any ecosystems to future climate change—natural or manmade.
That's the science—not the misleading scare campaigns that we hear from the opposition.
The coalition government is working to ensure that we do everything we can to protect the reef. We can't stop rising sea temperatures, we can't stop cyclones but we can do a lot of things to ensure the reef's viability. Here are a few things. On 5 July, the World Heritage Committee unanimously endorsed Australia's Reef 2050 Plan and the coalition's progress in implementing it. The World Heritage Committee has not put—I repeat: the World Heritage Committee has not put—the reef on their endangered watch list. This decision recognises Australia's significant efforts—that is, the coalition's significant efforts—in investment and the early, effective implementation of the reef's 2050 plan.
We, the coalition government, are investing $2 billion, jointly with Queensland, under the Reef 2050 Plan, to improve the health of the reef. Our investment continues to target water quality improvements such as reducing nitrogen, pesticides and sediment run-off, as well as the culling of the coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish. We can compare this to Labor's past track record when they were in government. When they left office after six years, which included a partnership with the Greens and the Independents, they had five massive dredge disposal projects planned. The World Heritage Committee put the reef, under Labor, on the watch list as 'in danger'. It was the coalition, when we came to office in 2013, who took unprecedented action. We ended all those dredge disposal plans put in place by Labor. As a result of our actions, the World Heritage Committee removed Australia from the endangered watch list and praised Australia as a global leader in reef management. That's what we on this side have done. We are concerned about the science, the engineering and the economics of looking after the Great Barrier Reef. In contrast, we've seen on the Labor side misleading, scaremongering ideology, which has nothing to do with protecting the reef.
The Great Barrier Reef is a vitally important asset to our nation. The coalition has the runs on the board when it comes to protecting it. We have the plan to go forward, our 2050 reef plan, which has been endorsed by experts around the world, including the World Heritage Committee. This legislation merely deals with small technical issues to make sure that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority continue with their good work. I encourage members of the opposition: when you are talking about the Great Barrier Reef, please do not continue to engage in this misleading scare campaign, because what you are doing is harming the very people that you represent. If you go out and mislead about the Great Barrier Reef, and run stories about death and coral bleaching, you are harming Australia's tourism industry. You are wrecking jobs and you are causing untold harm to people that work hard, put their investments into the reef and love and protect the reef. I commend this bill to the House, and I plead with members of the opposition: don't harm our nation and don't trash our nation with misleading claims, because you are hurting the very people that you claim to protect.
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (18:36): I would have to be one of the luckiest members in parliament, because I have the privilege of living in Townsville, which is situated right at the very doorstep of one of the greatest natural landmarks in the world, the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is the largest living structure on earth and is even visible from outer space. It sprawls over a jaw-dropping 344,400 square kilometres. It is bigger than Victoria and Tasmania combined; the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Holland combined; roughly the same area as Japan, Germany, Malaysia or Italy; approximately half the size of Texas; and slightly smaller than the entire Baltic Sea. The marine park stretches approximately 2,300 kilometres along the coast of North Queensland and is about the same length as the west coast of the USA from Vancouver to the Mexican border. The Belize Barrier Reef off the Caribbean coast of Belize is the second longest barrier reef in the world, at 290 kilometres, while the Ningaloo Reef off the Western Australian coast is 280 kilometres long.
The reef is composed of 3,000 individual reef systems, 600 tropical islands and about 300 coral cays. This complex maze of habitats provides refuge for an outstanding variety of marine plants and animals—from ancient sea turtles, reef fish and 134 species of sharks and rays to 400 different hard and soft corals and an abundance of seaweeds.
One of the magnificent islands on the reef is Magnetic Island, which is in my electorate of Herbert. You can snorkel on the reef only metres from the shore. If I am not already making people very jealous about my home town, then the next facts will: the Great Barrier Reef is not only the life support for thousands of marine plants and animals but also a huge life support for many of the communities who live on the east coast. The Great Barrier Reef, together with the fishing industry and tourism, delivers approximately $6 billion annually and supports just under 70,000 jobs. In Townsville, businesses such as SeaLink, Livaboards and Yongala Dive are just a few of the tourist businesses that operate very carefully on the Great Barrier Reef. With thousands of tourists flocking annually to Herbert, and more and more cruise ships choosing to dock, tourism for the electorate is only set to grow, and one of the most untapped resources on the barrier reef is Palm Island. Palm Island is one of the largest discrete Aboriginal communities in Australia. It is home to between 3,500 and 5,000 people, and it has the most gorgeous crystal-clear water you would ever see. Cultural tourism, together with dive expeditions, will be an amazing and expanding industry for Herbert, and, in particular, for the people on Palm Island.
Further to the tourism jobs created that are related to the reef, Herbert is home to world-leading marine scientific experts. The Great Barrier Reef has been a drawcard for many scientists, and they are proud to call Townsville home. Recently, the Centre for World University Rankings ranked James Cook University No. 1 in the world for marine and freshwater biology and No. 2 in the world for biodiversity conservation. There is no other university in Australia that can proclaim to be No. 1 in the world for anything.
A fortnight ago I held a mobile office on Magnetic Island, where I met four American students who were studying marine science at James Cook University because it has an international reputation as being one of the very best. One of them had put her studies in medicine in America on hold in order to come and study marine science in Townsville. This is the international reputation and fame that James Cook University has acquired, and I believe the university would support me in saying that none of this could be possible if they weren't located on the doorstep of this great natural wonder, the Great Barrier Reef.
But our scientific experts are not just at James Cook University. We are also home to the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The work currently being done at AIMS is cutting-edge and leads the world in marine research. Just recently, researchers from the University of Miami's School of Marine and Atmospheric Science travelled to Townsville, to the national sea simulator located at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, as part of the cutting-edge research being carried out to save the world's fish. The research is a collaboration of physiology, behaviour and gene compression to understand how rising carbon dioxide levels in the seawater will affect the behaviour of fish and to see what the Great Barrier Reef might look like in 2100.
AIMS's research extends far beyond the environmental. It also analyses the growing blue economy. The blue economy aims to shift society from a scarcity way of thinking to an abundance way of thinking, with what is locally available, by tackling issues that cause environmental and related problems in new ways. The blue economy works with the waste products first, ensuring that every component of every product is utilised. This new economy modelling is creating waves around the world. According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science's 2016 Index of marine industry report, sustained economic growth of the blue economy for the Australian marine industries sector far exceeds that of the national economy. According to the latest figures, the blue economy has more than doubled in the last 10 years, with marine industries now contributing more than $74 billion directly and indirectly to annual national gross domestic product, and growth is projected to continue.
These figures are amazing and show that this is where leaders need to focus. Those at James Cook University, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and AIMS are doing their research, and not only is it vital and necessary work but it also creates hundreds of jobs and makes Townsville an international marine research hub. That is why protecting the Great Barrier Reef is vital not only for our marine species but also for our communities and our economies.
Contrary to some of the fallacies and misconstrued information that some politicians in this place try to spruik, the Great Barrier Reef is indeed in danger. Coral bleaching, pollution and rapidly growing numbers of the crown-of-thorns starfish are endangering our reef. Those politicians who live in the golden triangle of the south-east corner of Queensland and make comments about an area that they have absolutely no understanding of need to realise that those 70,000 people who are employed by industries related to the Great Barrier Reef do not need their pie-in-the-sky personal theories. To go to one of the most south-point areas of the Great Barrier Reef and say that there is nothing wrong with the reef is the equivalent of standing on the edge of Ross River and saying that Townsville can't be in drought as there is water in the river. One has to look a bit further than the tip of one's nose.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science has been conducting reef surveys for more than 30 years. The AIMS's long-term monitoring program provides an invaluable record of change in coral reef communities over a large area of the Great Barrier Reef. Research shows that over the past 12 months hard coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef declined by about a quarter, bringing average reef-wide coral cover down to 18 per cent. These findings are based on surveys of 68 mainly mid- and outer-shelf reefs to March 2017. The impacts of coral bleaching, cyclones, and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks differ along the length of the reef. The bleaching was most intense on reefs between Cairns and Townsville. What this means in a longer-term context is that the decline in the scale of the coral cover in the northern Great Barrier Reef since 2013 is unprecedented—due to two severe cyclones and then the severe coral bleaching event that began in 2016. With this shocking research, it is clear that both sides of parliament need to work together to ensure that we protect our reef and the 70,000 jobs associated with it. That is why I'm proud to support this amendment to the bill.
Labor has a proud history of protecting and defending the Great Barrier Reef. This includes the Whitlam government's implementation of Australia's first marine reserve over the reef. Labor has also more recently established Australia's marine reserve network, the largest network of marine-protected area anywhere in the world. In light of the reports from experts like AIMS, extensive loss of coral and significant threats to the reef's health posed by climate change, it is even more pressing and must be upheld today.
One important practical tool to protect and support the reef is a plan of management for the reef. Plans of management assist with the implementation of ecologically sustainable practices and effective environmental management, especially for at-risk or vulnerable species and ecosystems in need of protection. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park currently has four plans of management in place. They operate in Cairns, Hinchinbrook Island, Shoalwater Bay and the Whitsundays. This bill addresses issues associated with the sunset clause in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. That clause has the effect of revoking plans of management where those regulations that give those plans effect are repealed. The changes proposed by this bill are designed to prevent this automatic revocation. I am happy to support this bill as it corrects a technical issue with existing legislation. This bill is only a small step, but it is a step in the right direction.
However, more needs to be done and the Turnbull government must do more. Labor's environmental policy commitments go further in their protective efforts, specifically Labor's Great Barrier Reef plan, which involves a more coordinated and efficient long-term management of the reef that is appropriately funded and resourced. This includes investing up to $100 million to review and improve current management practices in the reef, in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. This is further supported by Labor's comprehensive climate change action plan, which would deliver real action on climate change and in doing so preclude its harmful effect on the reef, including coral bleaching.
I want to continue to work with not only my Labor colleagues but those across the floor to ensure we preserve this great natural wonder that we know as the Great Barrier Reef. Preserving jobs, industries, economies and the largest living structure in the world should be bipartisan. No politician can purport to be a leading scientist above the likes of those at AIMS or James Cook University, so let's just leave the reef analysis to the experts and get on with protecting the Great Barrier Reef—for not to act would not only destroy this natural wonder but decimate North Queensland industries and our economy.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan—Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) (18:47): I rise today to speak in support of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017. I speak in support of this bill, in the main, to highlight to the many concerned constituents in my electorate of Ryan that I'm very conscious of their concerns about the management of the reef. Queensland is truly blessed to have the world's largest coral reef adorning our northern coastline. As a World Heritage listed site, the Great Barrier Reef boasts intrinsic beauty and incredible biodiversity. Ensuring the health of the reef, which supports tens of thousands of jobs, is of paramount importance to our government. We will do more for this reef than any prior government.
From Canberra to Timbuktu—and all stops in between—the Great Barrier Reef is the envy of the world. This bill will guarantee the protective management of the reef through amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Specifically, amendments within this bill seek to rectify an unintended consequence of the sunsetting regime and prevent plans of management being revoked. Under the Legislation Act 2003, regulations made under the marine park act are automatically repealed every 10 years. These regulations are due to sunset on 1 April next year. One might ask: why not just remake or repeal the regulations in order to resolve this situation? Simply put, this would still trigger a provision within the marine park act which would result in the current management plans being revoked. The provisions within this bill will resolve this issue so that plans of management will not be revoked when regulations made under the marine park act are repealed.
Plans of management play a critical role in ensuring the use of the marine park for tourism purposes is best practice and sustainable. The North Queensland economy has struggled in recent times from high levels of unemployment. With support from the coalition to ensure a responsible and viable tourism industry on the Great Barrier Reef, I know that opportunity is bountiful. Let me reassure the House that only a coalition government has the forethought to proactively approach this matter.
I segue into Labor's disastrous environmental record, akin to the antics of Looten Plunder from the TV series Captain Planet. After six years of mismanagement under Labor's watchful eye, the World Heritage Committee placed the Great Barrier Reef on an 'in danger' list. For a group which purports to be quasi-environmental warriors, it never ceases to amaze me that they just cannot seem to get it right. Just like with everything Labor does, they cannot be trusted. In close partnership with their Greens and independent allies, Labor saw five massive dredge disposal projects planned for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The coalition took unprecedented action to fix Labor's mess. We ended all five dredge disposal plans. We banned all future capital dredge disposal projects in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Let us not forget that it was a coalition government which developed the comprehensive Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, setting out our strategy to manage, protect and improve the reef for future generations. This plan was endorsed by the World Heritage Committee on 5 July.
Time and time again, we hear from the Greens and Labor about the state of the reef. In true Labor and Greens fashion, it is all talk and no action. In contrast, and as a result of the coalition's actions, the World Heritage Committee removed Australia from the 'in danger' watchlist and, indeed, praised Australia as a global leader in reef management. I do not believe I have ever heard the World Heritage Committee praising Labor.
Let me take this opportunity to reiterate in the House the coalition's achievements not only for the Great Barrier Reef but also for marine conservation in general. The original size of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was 17,000 square kilometres. As a result of coalition governments, today it is 344,400 square kilometres and extends 2,300 kilometres along the Queensland coast. This includes expanding the marine park's no-take sanctuary areas from five per cent to 33 per cent. Many of the most important initiatives in relation to marine protected areas in Australia's jurisdiction have been delivered by Liberal-National governments. In his first term as Prime Minister, John Howard established the world's first Oceans Policy in 1998. More than 15 years later, this policy approach to marine conservation and management was the basis on which the world's longest network of marine parks and sanctuaries was established here in Australia.
Under coalition leadership, Australia has boosted protection for whales, seals and seabirds in the Southern Ocean by expanding the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve and creating the largest fully-protected sanctuary in our exclusive economic zone. Successive coalition, federal and state governments have placed a prohibition on oil and gas in the Great Barrier Reef, banned whaling, banned sandmining on Fraser Island, created the first stage of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, World Heritage listed the Great Barrier Reef and created the Cairns section. They also established the Lihou Reef National Nature Reserve in the Coral Sea, the Coringa-Herald National Nature Reserve, the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve, the Great Australian Bight Marine Park, the Australian Whale Sanctuary, the Tasmanian Seamounts Marine Reserve, the Macquarie Island Commonwealth Marine Reserve, the Lord Howe Island Marine Park, the Cartier Island Commonwealth Marine Reserve, the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park's expansion of green zones, the Cod Grounds Commonwealth Marine Reserve, the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, which includes another 13 marine reserves, and the Lalang-garram/Camden Sound Marine Park and the Ngari Capes Marine Park in Western Australia.
You don't have to take my word for it. This is taken from a publication called Save Our Marine Life, which was produced by an alliance of leading conservation organisations working to protect Australia's marine life and way of life. They published this in recognition of the coalition government's legacy for reserves and for Australia. It bears repeating that, as I mentioned previously, it was a coalition government which banned capital dredge disposal in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and it was the Fraser government of 1975 which banned oil and gas operations on the reef.
The coalition has committed funding of over $2 billion over the next decade to protecting the reef. This funding includes commitments to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's reef fund to make finance available for businesses to deliver clean energy outcomes, alongside other benefits for the reef; $210 million for the establishment of the Reef Trust, which focuses on improving water quality through reducing sediment and nutrient run-off; and more than $22 million to cull the invasive crown-of-thorns starfish. In the words of Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment in the Howard government:
We believe that a comprehensive and representative system of marine parks is an essential component of our efforts to protect Australia's unique marine biodiversity.
The next time Labor, Greens or any other party, like GetUp, has a desire to denigrate the coalition's track record on marine conservation, I encourage them to refer to this speech for a taste of their failings and our achievements.
Local residents in the Ryan electorate, and all Australians, can be assured that the coalition government will ensure that Australia's natural wonders are preserved for our future generations to enjoy. Queenslanders, Australians and international tourists will continue to enjoy our great state and the range of natural attractions it has to offer. With four plans of management in place currently, it is vital that this bill be supported by all in this House to continue the protections and benefits afforded to the Great Barrier Reef.
I refer again to Robert Hill when he says:
This is the legacy we can be very proud of now and well into the future.
The Great Barrier Reef has always been and always will be Australia's reef. Queensland: beautiful one day, perfect the next. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (18:56): I'm pleased to rise tonight to support the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017 and to give the bipartisan support the member for Ryan seeks. I'm also pleased to follow the member for Ryan, who shared some of the history of the coalition and their concern for the Great Barrier Reef, referencing former Senator Hill. It harks back to a time when the majority of those opposite cared about marine life and cared about the planet. But I didn't hear a lot about action on climate change, and I think that's part of what this conversation needs to be about.
As my colleagues have said, Labor supports this bill because the meat of the bill is around a technical issue that needs support. But I wanted to take the opportunity, as a Victorian, to put my marker in the ground for people living in my electorate—many of whom holiday on the reef and many of whom, more importantly, come to talk to me about the importance of the reef—and to remind this House that it isn't just Queenslanders who care about the Great Barrier Reef. Their southern cousins care deeply about ensuring the future of the Great Barrier Reef and ensuring that it is protected.
It goes without saying that the Great Barrier Reef is iconic and holds a special place in the Australian imagination and the hearts of all Australians. This amendment, while a technical change, speaks to the need for continuity of care for the reef. In this space, Labor has a proud history of protecting and defending the Great Barrier Reef. The Whitlam government implemented Australia's first marine reserve over the reef. More recently, Labor established Australia's marine reserve network, the largest network of marine protected areas anywhere in the world—and looking at the maps does bring great pride about the work that the former Labor government did. Labor established a $200 million reef plan to work with farmers to improve the water quality of the reef. It extended the reef VTS—the vessel tracking system—to the whole World Heritage area. It worked in cooperation with traditional owners under the Land and Sea Country Partnerships Program. It established agreements for the traditional use of marine resources with a number of traditional owner groups. It established the Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Action Plan, which is of course critical for the future of the reef, and began the strategic assessment process.
Labor has a proud history here, and we support this bill, because the meat of this bill is around the plans of management that are already in place. In light of the extensive loss of coral, and significant threats to the reef's health posed by climate change, it is even more pressing that there be a continuous and long-term strategic plan for the reef. Plans of management assist with the implementation of ecologically-sustainable practices and effective environmental management, especially for at-risk or vulnerable species and ecosystems in need of protection. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the world's largest coral reef ecosystem, currently has four plans of management in place. They operate in Cairns, Hinchinbrook Island, Shoalwater Bay and the Whitsundays.
This bill addresses issues associated with the sunset clause in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. When the regulations are reviewed as mandated by the sunset clause in the legislation, in effect the plans of management will be repealed without being replaced. It takes time to come up with a new plan, get the research right and get stakeholders on board, so Labor supports this bill to ensure that that sunset clause doesn't trigger the repeal without replacement. The issue is that this process was not started early enough, so now, when the sunset is enacted on the existing legislation in 2018, there will be no plan to replace it. The changes proposed by this bill are designed to prevent this automatic revocation and ensure continuity of the plan. The amendments have no further consequence for policy or budgeting, and Labor therefore is happy to support the bill, as it corrects a technical issue with the existing legislation.
While this bill does something positive, I must take this opportunity to speak about why continued care for the reef is essential. We often speak about the beauty and significance of the reef in our joint imaginations; however, the reef also acts as a buffer between the savagery of the ocean and the coastline. Coral growth means there are natural deposits of coastal sediments. The reef's ability to protect the Queensland shoreline depends on the ability of individual reefs in the system to grow as sea levels continue to rise. As the bleaching continues, the health of the reef deteriorates, and its ability to grow to the levels required is diminished. Furthermore, as the sea becomes more acidic, because of increased levels of carbon dioxide, the very spines or the bones of the reef dissolve and degrade rapidly. While the research is still out on whether or not the reef will be able to grow alongside increasing sea levels, at this stage it looks like the reef growth will diminish. The Climate Council estimates that at least $226 billion of assets and infrastructure will be exposed to inundation if sea levels rise by 1.1 metres, so it is critically important that the reef be protected not just for tourism, its beauty, the love that Australians have for the reef, our history of connection to the reef and the jobs it provides but for the very important role it has to play in the ecosystem other than itself.
The government's new proposed marine park plans suggest that you can conserve ocean wildlife while allowing fishing and oil and gas exploration. Under the proposed plans there will be no changes to the boundaries of existing marine parks, which cover 36 per cent of Commonwealth waters, but areas inside the boundaries will be rezoned to allow for activities other than conservation. They are proposing a new zoning system for marine parks. The parts of the map that are green will be national park zones with full conservation protection, the yellow areas will be habitat protection zones where fishing is allowed as long as the sea floor is not harmed, and blue special purpose zones will allow for specific commercial activities. Effectively, this means the green zones will be reduced from the overarching 36 per cent to 20 per cent, and yellow or fishing zones will double from 24 per cent to 43 per cent of the marine park network. All of the science suggests that the health of the seabed is best in areas where there is no commercial activity. Remember, with sea levels rising, we need reefs and coral to be growing, not to be put at risk by increased commercial activity. In this instance, as in everything with this government, they are relying on flash and slick marketing over policy substance.
In contrast, while this legislation is welcome, Labor's environmental policy commitments go much further in their protective efforts. Specifically, Labor's Great Barrier Reef plan involves more coordinated and efficient long-term management of the reef that is appropriately funded and resourced. This includes investing up to $100 million to review and improve current management practices involving the reef, in consultation with relevant stakeholders. This is further supported by Labor's comprehensive Climate Change Action Plan, which will deliver real action on climate change and, in doing so, preclude its harmful effect on the reef, including coral bleaching, and ensure the reef can continue to protect the coastline.
We have heard speakers on this side of the House tonight speak not only about their passion for the reef but also about the importance to their local communities of the reef for tourism. It was also interesting to listen to the member for Herbert discuss the implications for universities and research and the notion of Townsville as a sea marine hub in research. These are all critical elements whenever we as legislators look at the implementation of marine parks or changes to marine parks.
I stand with my colleagues in being pleased to support this legislation, but I suggest that those opposite need to think about the attitudes across their party room. There are those who want to look at the science and prepare for the worst, as they say, to ensure that we protect the reef appropriately and therefore protect Queensland appropriately. I would urge those opposite who respect scientific research to speak long and hard to the members of their party room who want to dismiss the science, who want to dismiss the reality that is fast approaching and who refuse to budge and to put resources where they need to be to ensure the protection of our planet.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (19:07): I rise to speak on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill, to support the second reading amendment and, depending upon the success of the amendment, to support the legislation, which is largely technical in nature. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 as it currently stands contains a sunset clause which has the effect of revoking plans of management where the regulations which give those plans effect are repealed. The changes proposed by this bill are designed to prevent this automatic revocation and they do not have consequences for policy or for the budget of the authority.
Plans of management are one practical tool we use to protect and support the reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the world's largest coral reef ecosystem, currently has four plans of management in place. They operate in Cairns, Hinchinbrook Island, Shoalwater Bay and the Whitsundays. Plans of management assist with the implementation of ecologically sustainable practices and effective environmental management, especially for at-risk or vulnerable species and ecosystems in need of protection. Of course, the Great Barrier Reef requires much more than this, with experts holding grave fears about its future life span. In an address to the University of Queensland, former United States President Barack Obama had this to say:
The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened … I want to come back and I want my daughters to be able to come back and I want them to be able to bring their daughters or sons to visit. I want that there 50 years from now.
I think it says something about the iconic nature of the Great Barrier Reef that then US President Obama went out of his way to ensure that he visited Queensland to give an important speech about the reef, about climate change and about the important responsibility that we have to future generations.
We on this side of the House are determined to take action on climate change and to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef continues to be an extraordinary part of Australia's national landscape. It is, indeed, a national icon but also an international piece of natural environment that is incredibly significant. It has been recognised as one of the seven wonders of the natural world and the only living thing on earth visible from outer space. This is why the coalition's inaction when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef is quite astounding.
In 2005, when I was the shadow minister for the environment, I said, 'The Great Barrier Reef is in danger of disappearing over the next 50 years, but we have a government that is frozen in time while the world warms round it.' Back then, of course, we had a Prime Minister who refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and who was talking about being sceptical of the science around climate change. When Malcolm Turnbull assumed the prime ministership after the assassination of the elected Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, Australians were entitled to expect a different policy on climate change, given the long-held views that the member for Wentworth had. Apparently, he was prepared to trade in all of that conviction for the keys to the Lodge. That is very problematic and not just because of the chaos that the government finds itself in. More importantly, the policy repercussions of the caving in of the member for Wentworth in order to secure those keys to the Lodge have had real consequences for the government's approach to environmental issues.
The coalition has been given opportunities to address the challenge of looking after the Great Barrier Reef and climate change, but it has failed dismally with each opportunity. Earlier this year, the independent expert panel, led by former Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, recommended an urgent revision of the Reef 2050 Plan to enable 'mitigation, adaptation and management of the reef in the face of inexorable global warming'. The simple fact is, if Australia and the world don't keep global temperatures in line with our commitments under the Paris Agreement, the reef will continue to deteriorate.
In the last 18 months alone, the reef has suffered two unprecedented bleaching events—irrefutable climate change occurring right in front of us. Despite these events, under the coalition government, carbon emissions rose by 1.4 per cent in the last year. Of course, we had seen those emissions decline when Labor was in government, but we have seen that reverse. What is worse is that not just have we seen it reverse but also we have seen the impact on energy prices, with a doubling of wholesale power prices since the abolition of the price on carbon, in spite of the very clear commitments that were given by the coalition. Indeed, the government's own emissions projection show that Australia will not even come close to meeting our obligations under the Paris Agreement, because of their failure to take adequate action.
It is more than just the experts who are severely worried about climate change impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. The recently released Climate of the Nation survey showed that 74 per cent of Australians have a high level of concern about climate change causing damage to the Great Barrier Reef. But still, it seems, the coalition has a general willingness to sacrifice our natural environment. This is made evident by their attempts to give environmental powers over issues of national importance to the states as well as sustained budget cuts to environmental programs since coming to power.
Earlier tonight, I was at the ARENA showcase. ARENA, of course, is an organisation that the coalition government wanted to abolish all funding for. But now they are prepared to go along. The minister for energy is giving a speech at the showcase, probably at the same time as I am on my feet now, to a body which he believed should be abolished, and voted for it earlier on.
The Prime Minister must be prepared to stand up to the troglodytes in his own party. He must be prepared to do that. You, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, would know full well why it is so important for the Prime Minister to do just that: because, at the moment, he is pleasing no-one. The Neanderthals in the coalition who don't believe the science of climate change aren't giving him any support, and he's losing support from people in mainstream Australia who understand that they've got to respect the science and take action. The fact is that the internals of the Liberal Party room keep winning out over the Australian people and the natural environment time and time again. Instead, in an act of which the reasoning behind is beyond my comprehension, the government revealed its plans last month to wind back protections in our oceans. No government anywhere else in the world has ever removed this many hectares out of conservation before. What we've seen throughout history—in particular, at the end of the last century and the beginning of this century—is a greater awareness that humankind must live in harmony with its natural environment, not in conflict with it, and an understanding that we have a responsibility to future generations to protect that natural environment. Yet this government seems determined to reduce the protection of the oceans around our coastline as an island continent.
To make matters worse, the Turnbull government plans to destroy Australia's shipping industry and turn the Australian coast into a free-for-all, whereby, as much as it talks about national security, it's prepared to have foreign workers without proper security vetting working on foreign wages around our coast, taking the jobs of the Australian workforce. That has real consequences for the environment as well. The truth is that every single incident around our coast that has led to environmental disaster has involved a foreign-flagged vessel.
The Shen Neng 1 was a ship more than 10 kilometres outside of the shipping lane when it struck the Great Barrier Reef late on the afternoon of 3 April 2010. It scraped along the reef, causing damage of a considerable length. It is the longest known grounding scar on the reef, approximately three kilometres long and 250 metres wide. Why did that happen? Because the captain of the ship simply forgot to turn through the channel. He wasn't familiar with it, he was overworked, and he hadn't had proper rest, and the consequence of that was damage to our reef. Some of the damaged areas have become completely devoid of marine life, and it will take up to 20 years for this section of the reef to return to the state that it was in prior to the incident. By 13 April, oil tar balls were washing up on the beaches of North West Island, a significant bird rookery and turtle nesting colony. All up, the spill killed over 400 different species of animals and over 500 different species of plants. The subsequent investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau concluded that the grounding of the ship was caused by human error. Indeed, they found that the chief officer, who was the officer on watch at the time, had neglected to program a required course change in the ship's GPS navigation system due to fatigue.
That's just one of the reasons why we simply can't take shortcuts when it comes to protecting the Great Barrier Reef. We in this place have a real responsibility. It should, frankly, be a bipartisan issue because we know how critical it is. We on this side of the House have announced our Great Barrier Reef plan, which involves more coordinated and efficient long-term management of the reef that is appropriately funded and resourced and includes investment of up to $100 million to review and improve current management practices in the reef, in consultation with relevant stakeholders. It's further supported by our climate change action plan. Labor will also double the number of Indigenous rangers in the Working on Country program. A number of its projects are in catchment areas. Our doubling of rangers includes the specialised Indigenous ranger program, which aims to improve marine conservation, particularly for dugongs and turtles, along the Far North Queensland coast.
But if I can't convince those opposite about the environment, surely the economic benefits of the Great Barrier Reef should convince them. A Deloitte Access Economics study, At what price? The economic and social icon of the Great Barrier Reef, found the reef is worth $56 billion in economic, social and icon terms. It supports 64,000 jobs. These jobs are mainly tourism related, but the reef also supports fishing, recreation and scientific activities. It contributes some $6.4 billion a year to the national economy. That's every single year.
In my time as the shadow minister for tourism, I have held a number of roundtable meetings in Far North Queensland on these issues. Most recently, I met with representatives of Citizens of the Great Barrier Reef, a new initiative designed to engage the world to support positive action and address climate change through a focus on preserving the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef. They are working closely with Tourism Tropical North Queensland, showing that if everyone works together the outcomes can be maximised. That is absolutely critical for the tourism sector.
In conclusion, Labor is committed to working with environmental groups, the tourism sector and experts to ensure that the reef receives the protection that it deserves and needs. You only need to look to what we've done to see that we've shown our conviction on these matters. That is because we have a responsibility to future generations.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (19:22): Like I hope most MPs in this parliament have, I have a very engaged constituency. I receive a huge volume of correspondence from the people who I represent in this parliament every day. It's a great gauge of the issues that are hot-button in our community at the moment. I can tell you from four years experience now that the Great Barrier Reef is one of these hot-button issues. Australians are fiercely protective of the Great Barrier Reef. They love it. It is part of our DNA as Australians to identify with the reef and all that it represents for the Australian way of life.
This is bad news, I think, for the Turnbull government, because the common thread of this correspondence that I receive from constituents about the Great Barrier Reef is a distrust of the competence of the Turnbull government to manage both the micro-issues of the reef—the marine park management issues—and also the macro challenges of dealing with the bigger threat to the reef posed by man-made climate change. I always encourage my constituents to write to me. I enjoy it when I get letters from my school groups. They have been flooding in recently in response to changes to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park arrangements.
The Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef in the world and rightly one of the world's natural wonders. It is not only iconic but something Australians are extremely passionate about. You can go to almost any part of the world and people will comment on Australia's natural beauty. The Great Barrier Reef is part of our nation's brand overseas. Australians and many others dream of sailing to the reef and snorkelling and diving to experience firsthand its astonishing diversity of marine life. This is something that is handed down from generation to generation. My grandmother lived on Daydream Island as a young girl, and I was very happy to return to the region as a young child. It is something we hand on across generations in Australia.
The size of the reef is mind boggling at 344,400 square kilometres, the same size as 70 million football fields, or roughly the same area as Japan, Germany, Italy or Malaysia. It stretches over 2,300 kilometres and contains 600 types of hard and soft corals, 100 species of jellyfish, 3,000 varieties of molluscs, 500 species of worms, more than 1,600 types of fish, over 100 different varieties of sharks and stingrays, and around 30 species of whales and dolphins. The Great Barrier Reef is extraordinary in its biodiversity, and the interconnectedness of its habitats and species is unique and complex—and something that we ought to treasure and protect with great ferocity.
However, we face an enormous challenge to protect the reef. Coral reefs serve many important functions. They provide protection to coastlines from the damaging effects of wave action and tropical storms. They provide habitats and shelter for many marine organisms. They are a source of nitrogen and other essential nutrients for marine food chains. They assist in carbon and nitrogen fixing and help with nutrient recycling. Healthy ecosystems like this are essential for natural resources, the purification of air and water, and the creation of soil and the breakdown of pollutants. A diverse range of species allows for a larger gene pool, which can protect this diversity against environmental changes. Generations of Australians should be able to experience this natural wonder.
The sheer size of the reef means that we need a collaborative approach to manage this resource. This bill, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017, addresses issues associated with the sunset clause in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, regarding revoking management plans. The bill proposes changes to prevent any automatic revocation and have no budgetary or policy consequences as such. Labor support this bill, as it's correcting technical issues with the current legislation. However, Labor's policies on the environment and on the reef go much further than simple protective provisions.
We recognise the environmental, social and economic benefits of the reef. Not only is it a national treasure but it is a crucial source of jobs for tens of thousands of Australians, particularly in regional Australia. A Deloitte report estimated that the reef is worth $56 billion, contributed $6.4 billion to the Australian economy in 2015-16 and supported 64,000 full-time jobs. The reef attracts two million visits each year from both Australians and people from abroad. However, the reef is deteriorating and its ecosystem is declining. With every passing day, the reef and the jobs it provides are being put more and more at risk.
The Great Barrier Reef Water Science Task Force report of May 2016 confirmed climate change is the single biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's assessment, produced every five years—the latest in 2014—is that the outlook is 'poor', having deteriorated significantly since 2009. According to the authority, the death of coral has been estimated at around half between 2016 and 2017, and the worst damage is in the remote northern sections, which were previously the most pristine. Data released by the Australian Institute of Marine Science reveals that, before the second wave of bleaching in 2017, coral cover on the northern third of the Reef had reduced from 20 per cent to less than 10 per cent.
At the last federal election, Labor committed to a Great Barrier Reef plan. The plan comprised three elements. The first is science and research to improve monitoring of reef issues to ensure the protection of the reef is based on the latest specialised science. This includes an additional investment in climate and reef science at the CSIRO of $50 million. The second is direct environmental investment: integrating direct investment to improve water quality, land management, agricultural and transport sustainability, and environmental impacts. The third is reef management: improving reef management architecture, and incentives to fix the fragmented and uncoordinated approach that has for too long characterised reef management and conservation.
Climate change, however, is the critical issue of our generation. It's happening right here, right now, and it's having real-world impacts on our country already. Ban Ki-moon eloquently pointed out that we are the last generation that can take steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Urgent revisions of the Reef 2050 plan recommended by an expert independent panel led by former Chief Scientist Ian Chubb would enable mitigation, adaptation and management of the reef in the face of inexorable global warming. A Word Heritage Committee report released this month confirms global action is required to save the reef—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
Broadband
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (19:30): I rise today to speak about the Prime Minister's flawed copper NBN—an NBN that has experienced significant issues, including installation problems, outages and very slow speeds. As the Prime Minister's copper NBN rolls out, it's becoming increasingly clear that its reliance on outdated technology is leaving consumers stranded. They are facing slow speeds and unacceptably high dropout rates. Dissatisfied consumers are now learning that the government's copper-based fibre-to-the-node plan, not Labor's superior fibre-to-the-premises model, is a dud.
In my electorate of Hindmarsh, I'm seeing an increase in NBN-related complaints from my constituents. Not a day goes by without a constituent contacting me and complaining about the passing of the buck between the service provider and NBN Co. What could have been a nation-building project and a nation-building moment for the country, as envisaged by the then Labor government at the time, has been watered down into a second-rate, patchy and unreliable network. One of the biggest concerns for constituents is the reliability of the NBN. I have to say, I do share their concerns.
On top of reliability concerns, according to the NBN Co, equipment connected over the NBN will not work during a power blackout without the purchase of additional equipment. In some cases, auto-dialling emergency alarms that are in place to alert emergency services or a loved will not work and may require an upgrade. House alarms also may not be compatible. For pensioners and their families, this is a terrifying prospect. On top of the safety concerns, we're paying top dollar for an inferior network. According to CHOICE, Australia is now ranked 50th in the world for broadband speed, with a sluggish 11.1 megabits per second. In comparison—I don't pretend to be an expert on New Zealand's infrastructure, but perhaps the member for New England could assist with his newly-discovered cultural connections to our cousins across the ditch—New Zealand's average speed increased 40 per cent to 14.7 megabits per second. Where does it all end?
On top of these issues I've outlined, we know that there have been significant issues, including installation problems, outages and slow, slow repair times. These are things that constituents tell me every day. For example, one particular constituent who approached me recently from the suburb of Plympton Park in my electorate raised concerns regarding 15 appointments—not one, not two, but 15 appointments—that have been made with her via text from NBN Co to attend and complete the NBN installation on her property. She received her first notice in December 2016 and has since then had 15 appointments made with no actual visits thus far. Only on two occasions has anybody called her back to inform her of a postponement. This is not acceptable, and I can't see how this is acceptable. It is absolutely not acceptable.
In addition to the direct contact with constituents, you only need to listen to talkback radio or read recent letters to the editor in all the major newspapers to hear some of the horror stories around connection problems, dropouts and major technical issues with this government's NBN rollout. Last year, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman found that new complaints about faults on the NBN soared by almost 150 per cent. There was a near 50 per cent increase in new complaints about internet data speeds. Recently, the TIO said that they expect complaints about the NBN to double from the already extraordinary high figure this year.
On this side of the House we are committed to promoting innovation and technology, because we know that with innovation and technology you create jobs and you provide better services for people. Labor's NBN—fibre to the premises—has been butchered by this government, and Australia continues to fall behind. One thing is for sure: a Labor government will support our constituents, including those elderly people who have been ringing my office, by supporting a world-class, reliable internet infrastructure for all Australians. As the government's botched, patchy copper NBN continues its slow rollout across Hindmarsh, I and all of us on this side of the House will continue to fight— (Time expired)
Barker Electorate: Building Better Regions Fund
Mr PASIN (Barker) (19:35): I rise to speak about the Building Better Regions Fund, a fund that focuses on creating jobs, driving economic growth and building stronger regional communities into the future. Recently we had announcements from the minister, the Hon. Fiona Nash, regarding the first round of the BBRF program. The minister tells me that she was blown away by the level of enthusiasm shown by applicants. Nearly 550 organisations from across Australia made an application to the infrastructure stream.
Barker is a truly committed community, focused on working towards a better future. They're hardworking, dedicated constituents who volunteer their time. This is the main reason so many applications in Barker were successful. Speaking of this success, let me turn to the first of such successful applications. It was the Riverland Exhibition Centre, for a $400,000 contribution towards a new presentation pavilion that will provide an air-conditioned and acoustically finished auditorium for 300. It will come with the usual multifunction kitchen for cooking demonstrations, catering support and the like. It will leverage the existing facility of the Riverland Exhibition Centre to expand its use and attract new events. I give high praise to Tim Grieger and his hardworking committee of volunteers for submitting such a worthy application.
The second such successful application dealt with the Murray River Maritime Trail, for a $400,000 or so contribution towards the trail. It will see upgraded landing facilities at Swan Reach, at Nildottie and at Mannum. Each of these upgrades will allow these river towns to access additional tourism as people spend time in the town after using the infrastructure and getting off the very many historical paddle-steamers that traverse the river.
The third such successful application was a $400,000 contribution to the new Bordertown racing community centre, which will see the provision of a new two-storey racing and community centre and increased use of the racing club site both for racing and community activities, providing community integration and helping to avoid isolation. This will drive greater economic growth—12 full-time equivalents in the construction phase and eight full-time equivalents ongoing. The Bordertown Racing Club's Max Fryar and secretary and manager Sonya Lodewyk are to be congratulated, as is Frank Mastrangelo, who did all the design work.
Another successful application—my personal favourite—is a second home for Ryder-Cheshire in Mount Gambier, at a cost of $530,000, from the federal government. The construction of a second Ryder-Cheshire home in Mount Gambier will provide assisted accommodation for five adults with physical or intellectual disabilities, allowing them to have 24/7 care. I'm particularly proud of this application, because they made numerous attempts to get this far. They took on the feedback and presented a better and better application each time. Praise must be given to all the hardworking volunteers and board members of Ryder-Cheshire, including president Neville Gilbertson. A special mention also goes to Jerry Leech, who put in an enormous amount of work on the plan and the application itself. Not a week went by that Jerry wasn't in contact with my office about the application.
The Mount Gambier all-weather track attracted a funding grant of $1.5 million. This will see the Mount Gambier thoroughbred horseracing track rebuilt. The new track will ensure consistent conditions and safety for participants and will allow additional race meetings to be scheduled. There will be 12 full-time equivalents in construction and 24 during operation. Sadly, the Mount Gambier track has been beleaguered with a string of race meeting cancellations in recent years due to heavy downpours. Congratulations to Nick Redin from Thoroughbred Racing SA and John Fartch and his hardworking committee at the racing club.
And finally, probably the jewel in the crown, is a $4.5 million contribution to a new multicommunity and sporting facility at Loxton. This much-needed and longed-for sporting facility was heralded by the community. I can't do it justice, I'll leave it to Mayor Leon Stasinowsky, who, on receiving the advice of this grant, said:
This is a milestone in the tireless efforts of the community stakeholder reps, elected members and staff who have again demonstrated the spirit and generosity within our community and their willingness to work and unite behind a common goal, resulting in a positive and a great outcome for the Loxton community.
This outcome sees $4.5 million of federal grant funds go towards a $12 million project. It is a great outcome.
Tasmania: Infrastructure
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (19:40): Last week I briefly spoke in this place on the issue of the Tasmanian government failing to stand up for our state and lobby the Commonwealth for funding for the Cradle Mountain Master Plan development, a $160 million project. This plan is a number one infrastructure project for our region and Tasmania's tourism industry. A response to a question taken on notice during Senate estimates shows this failure. The response showed that Premier Will Hodgman has failed to make a single representation to the Commonwealth body for the project.
Another response shows the Hodgman government has failed to make any representations to the Commonwealth for another crucial local infrastructure project, a network of shared coastal pathways along the north-west coast of Tasmania. The shared coastal pathway is a fantastic opportunity for our region to connect towns, enhance our lifestyle, attract visitors and drive new small businesses. There is a perverse irony that Premier Hodgman is also Tasmania's tourism minister. It is a dereliction of his duty as tourism minister that he has not gone in to bat for Tasmania's tourism infrastructure. He is failing our region.
But now more written answers have revealed more failures, where this Premier and his government have let Braddon down. The Bass Highway is our region's economic lifeline. It runs from Marrawah to Launceston carrying freight, tourists, buses and local traffic. It also connects passengers, vehicles and freight from the Spirit of Tasmania ships to the rest of the state. Just past where the Spirit docks, the Bass Highway runs through Latrobe. At Latrobe the community has taken up a petition to try and address local road safety issues. It is simply unsafe turning on and off the highway in and out of local businesses. Over 1,000 signatures were gathered by local business proprietors, Ian and Trudy Hill. The Latrobe Council has told me the development of their industrial estate is also being hampered by unsafe access.
There is a simple solution to this issue. The state government has surplus Commonwealth funds from another project on the highway that can be reallocated to Latrobe. All that is required is for the state to make a submission to the Commonwealth for the funds to be reallocated, but do you think the Hodgman government has got off its backside and made a submission? The answer, from questions taken on notice during Senate estimates as to whether this has happened, was one word—no.
How long is it going to take for this lazy, do-nothing state Liberal government to get its act together? How many near misses are there going to be before action is taken? This is not good enough. The litany of failures to stand up for my region continues. At the western end of my electorate, from Smithton to Marrawah, the Bass Highway is in a state of disrepair and to the east, between Cowrie Point and Detention there are multiple black spots. Similar to Latrobe, a community petition of 654 members has been gathered. The local council has funded its own report and presented it to the state Liberal government calling for action. The highway at Circular Head is categorised as a state road, but do you think that Premier Hodgman or his bungling infrastructure minister has done anything about it? Sadly, the answer is no. Their own state budget did not contain one cent for the Bass Highway at Circular Head. To top it off, another answer from Senate estimates shows that Premier Hodgman and his minister have not made a single representation to the Commonwealth to support fixing this road. It is almost as if Premier Hodgman has taken the people of Circular Head for granted. Or is it that he just does not care?
Federal Labor made commitments during the 2016 campaign to support all of these projects: Cradle Mountain, shared coastal pathways, Bass Highway at Latrobe and Bass Highway in Circular Head. They are all crucial job-creating projects and, in the case of the Bass Highway, critical safety projects. I know my colleagues, under the leadership of Rebecca White, are already talking to their federal colleagues on these issues. State and federal Labor are ready and willing to work together, something the state Liberals are unable or unwilling to do here in Canberra. There is an opportunity for these issues to be dealt with in a bipartisan way. All it takes is for the lazy, do-nothing Tasmanian Premier and his minister to pick up the phone, put pen to paper and join with Labor to secure these projects.
Durack Electorate: Infrastructure
Ms PRICE (Durack) (19:44): This evening I rise to speak about the Building Better Regions Fund and its predecessor, the National Stronger Regions Fund. These two fine funding initiatives have brought great benefits to regional Australia. They are further examples of this government's commitment to regional Australia and to my electorate of Durack—unlike those opposite during the six dark years that we endured when they sat on these benches and we saw very little happen. This afternoon in the other House I talked about what this government has done, in terms of big infrastructure investment in my electorate of Durack and in regional Western Australia as a whole, but what I would like to do this evening is take the time to look at the programs which I have just referred to, which are aimed at providing small- and medium-sized grants to regional communities, because often a small investment in a regional community will go a long way.
I've been incredibly fortunate that my strong advocacy, together with very strong local partnerships, has resulted in having around one out of every 10 projects funded through these programs in Australia over the past two years actually being placed in my electorate of Durack. Under the National Stronger Regions Fund, we were successful in the Wheatbelt, which received nearly $3 million to fund five separate projects across the region. In the Kimberley, we saw a sum of just over $5 million for the Derby Airport upgrades, which was through the National Stronger Regions Fund, and also $300,000 for the Kununurra Campdraft and Rodeo Association to improve their facilities in the far north-western town of Kununurra in the Kimberley. The Derby Airport upgrades were a big investment into that west Kimberley town, which needed the injection. It was a real win for my partnership with the shire of West Kimberley to get that project up.
I now refer back to the rodeo grounds in Kununurra. When I opened these rodeo facilities some two weeks ago, it marked the first rodeo for the dry season. Mr Speaker, I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you need to go to a good old-fashioned outback rodeo to know that you have lived, especially one that is well run and well resourced. I am so proud that our government invested $300,000 in this facility. It's really going to make a big difference to tourism in terms of the local tourist but also expanding the rodeo experience for people across Australia. There would be nowhere better to go than Kununurra to experience that. In addition to that, the new facilities will allow more rodeos to be held throughout the year, and the food and beverages facilities will allow the association to generate more revenue during these events. Of course, as it becomes more successful this, in turn, leads to more events—you know how it snowballs. That's what the future holds. It is great inspiration, I think, for that local community. In addition to that, really good facilities will give an opportunity for other local organisations to come and use them, so it becomes a broad based community set of facilities. I think that's the real benefit of it.
I turn now to the Building Better Regions Fund. We know that this has taken the solid foundation of good local projects like the one I talked about in Kununurra and built on it, with a commitment to projects that are guaranteed to enhance the local community that is receiving them. I've certainly had many of those in my electorate of Durack—projects like the culture and healing centre at Cable Beach in Broome, which is owned and operated by the Yawuru Aboriginal Corporation. This project will deliver another cultural tourist attraction to what is already an iconic tourism destination in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. But what this centre adds to the mix is Aboriginal people who will be able to perform stories, songs and dances from their cultures for visitors and encourage a real intermingling of cultures on their traditional land for what is an incredibly multicultural part of Western Australia.
The Shire of Ashburton has had some success. It received an amount of over $9 million for an industrial waste management centre in Onslow. Mr Speaker, a waste management facility is not sexy—I can guarantee you that—let alone the management of an industrial waste facility. But let me tell you, Mr Speaker, and my colleagues who are here, that the regional benefits of these funds alone, not including the benefits to the town of Onslow, are considerable. Currently, the waste is sent to Perth. So it travels thousands of kilometres from the Kimberley through the Pilbara, the Mid West and the Gascoyne to eventually end up in Perth. This is just one of the fabulous projects that this government is continuing to support.
Marriage
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (19:49): Tonight, I'm thinking about my lifelong friends—Tom and James, Kate and Julie, Zac and Simon, and all LGBTI sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, carers, friends, workmates and loved ones across Australia. I'm thinking about how they feel in the face of this government's open disrespect for their relationships, for their legal rights, and, indeed, for this parliament. Since when did it become okay for Australia to decide that an individual's human rights should be put to a popular vote? Not that all LGBTI people wish to marry, but they sure as hell want to have the choice. Yet this government's non-binding, non-determinative, non-compulsory postal survey on marriage equality is tragic—nothing more than the result of this Prime Minister's complete and utter capitulation to the right wing of his party at the expense of his long-held principles.
I can totally understand people's temptation to throw away this survey in disgust, to not dignify it with participation, but today I'm urging people in my community to think twice before doing so. Opting out will do nothing to advance the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people in Australia. What it will do is to play into the hands of those who would hold off marriage equality indefinitely. This is a survey that Labor didn't want, it's a survey we don't support, and it's a survey we most certainly don't need. Regardless, that is where we are, and we simply can't abandon our LGBTI citizens when they need us most. We must stand up and let this government know that Australians understand that same-sex couples' love is just as real, and their relationships are just as valid, as any other.
Same-sex couples are just as deserving of respect and equality, and we must do everything in our power to make sure the yes vote wins. With a price tag of $122 million, there is no doubt that the Prime Minister's postal survey is a breathtaking, reckless waste of money. It's shocking to think just what we could have done with this funding, if Mr Turnbull had had the courage to stand up to his right-wing masters. We could have employed 1,900 new teachers, we could have subsidised child care for more than 16,000 families a year or we could have funded 2.7 million bulk-billed visits to the doctor.
Instead, we're handing over the basic responsibilities of this parliament to a totally flawed, opt-in opinion poll. The suggestion that the parliament is suddenly incapable of doing its job, that we should farm out human rights decisions to a popular vote, is offensive and is wrong. In the 116-year history of this place we have passed hundreds of fundamental changes without asking the Australian people to do our job for us. We floated the dollar, we implemented universal health care, we initiated the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we've signed free trade deals, we've brought in world-leading gun reform, we've been to war and we've brokered peace—all without going to the public for their input. Prime Minister John Howard certainly saw no need to go to the Australian people when he changed the Marriage Act to stop marriage equality in 2004. So it's an utter nonsense that we have to do this in 2017. But by far the worst part of this terrible survey is that it will set off a damaging, divisive and hurtful campaign. The Prime Minister will be held to account for every hurtful comment, every damaging lie and every vicious slur.
Regretfully, we can't stop this survey from happening, but what we can do is change the result. Today, I'm calling on all marriage equality supporters in my community, both young and old, to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our LGBTI citizens, and support the yes vote. But first, you must be registered to vote. If you aren't registered, if you don't know whether you are or if you've moved house since the last election, please visit the Australian Electoral Commission website to update your details or register to vote. With the rolls closing on 24 August, you don't have long to go. (Time expired)
Renewable Energy
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (19:54): Today in South Australia there was a rather significant announcement for my electorate with the state government announcing that they had done a deal on a purchase for renewable energy with a company called SolarReserve. SolarReserve have a solar-thermal concentrating facility in Nevada, which I've visited, where they store energy in molten salt. I'm very pleased with this announcement. The project holds great promise for Port Augusta. But I must say, at this stage, the Premier has not actually given us the full detail on the deal, which I think we need to fully assess its true value and viability. Over the past couple of years I've worked very closely with several proponents looking to construct a solar-thermal plant in Port Augusta and, in fact, as part of our election commitment last year we committed to supporting that particular project through ARENA. But for almost 12 months now there has been a hold-up, because whoever it is that proposes to build a plant in Port Augusta needs a long-term take-off agreement. Industry has been a little reluctant to sign one of those agreements, so the state government came out some time ago and said they were prepared to negotiate such a deal. It has been a long time waiting for this deal to come, it must be said, but I'm pleased it's here now, even though there has been a lot of uncertainty along the way.
It is my understanding, though, that SolarReserve has not yet done a deal with ARENA to access the $110 million that is on the table as an offer from the federal government for a debt and equity loan. I assume they will now open serious negotiations, but, as I said, I don't have that information. The $78 per megawatt hour that the Premier announced today as South Australia's purchase price for electricity is undoubtedly a very good price indeed, but it is fundamental to our understanding of the deal to know whether or not the federal government's $110 million has been assumed as part of that deal, or whether or not the state government has offered any other side deals. In this area, the state government announced a couple of months ago that they had done a deal with Elon Musk to install the Southern Hemisphere's biggest battery, but unfortunately, at this stage, we still don't have the detail on that deal either. It is important if we are to understand the value and the viability of these deals that the Premier does share this information with us. Certainly the deal with South Australia will greatly enhance SolarReserve's prospects of attracting that support from ARENA—if indeed they need it at all, because that's something I don't know either—as I understand there has been considerable interest from other parties in that particular pool of funds.
Let it be said that it is important for these deals, if we are to subsidise renewable energy and this type of project, that they become repeatable projects, not ones that stand as monuments to a subsidy from long ago, if you like. It is very important that the deals become sharp enough that they stand on their own two legs. That's why we need more understanding. To be fair to the Premier, it's very early days yet, and I assume and hope that he'll offer a lot more detail over the next week or two. However, for those potential other investors, for the sake of both federal and state taxpayers, it is imperative that he provide those details in a timely fashion so we can properly analyse the deal. For the people of Port Augusta, it has certainly been a very exciting day, and they can be assured that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the establishment of the solar-thermal concentrator with storage in Port Augusta becomes a reality.
I will continue to talk to the other proponents—one of them I think has a very interesting Australian technology, which would have some benefits if, of course, we could lead the world in that area. Importantly, I have been saying for some time that South Australia should commission no more renewable projects unless they have storage, and, in this particular case, this project does have storage and I think it has great merit. I am just waiting for those figures before I fully come out and say this is a great deal.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notice was given:
Ms Rowland to move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world and that melanoma is the most common cancer in young Australians aged 15 to 39; and
(b) LEGO is a world-renowned brand with a philosophy to foster imaginative and creative learning and development through play;
(2) congratulates Mr Damien MacRae and his seven year old son Aiden on creating an Australian sun smart beach themed LEGO project entitled 'LEGO Surf Rescue', which has reached the required 10,000 supporters for the LEGO Ideas review;
(3) recognises that:
(a) Mr MacRae and his family have shown remarkable resilience and positivity, in spite of his terminal melanoma diagnosis, in highlighting the dangers of skin cancer and the importance of sun safety; and
(b) the 'LEGO Surf Rescue' project:
(i) demonstrates not only the importance of sun safety to reduce the risks of melanoma, but also highlights the importance of surf lifesaving and promotes healthy and active lifestyles for children; and
(ii) would be the first set in LEGO history to feature figures wearing sunscreen; and
(4) calls on LEGO to support 'LEGO Surf Rescue', and to approve the project to become an official LEGO set.
Ms Husar to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the importance of NAIDOC Week;
(2) notes that:
(a) the promotion of NAIDOC Week celebrations at school is vital to ensuring long term cultural and attitudinal change;
(b) Western Sydney has the largest Aboriginal population in a metropolitan setting;
(c) NAIDOC Week's theme is 'our language matters'; and
(d) more needs to be done to record and promote the history, culture and achievement of Aboriginal culture in Western Sydney before it is lost; and
(3) calls on the Government to ensure that greater language education is provided to the community beyond NAIDOC Week.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) took the chair at 10:32.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Holt Electorate: National Security
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:32): On 23 September 2014, terrorism visited my electorate when a young man tried to kill two police officers by stabbing them to death in front of the Endeavour Hills Police Station. The coroner brought down his findings on 31 July this year. and I want to read into the record some of the findings of Coroner John Olle's inquest into this event, which had worldwide ramifications, particularly with respect to the young man attempting to kill the two police officers post a fatwa that was issued by ISIL.
There has been a lot of conjecture by uninformed persons about what actually happened that night. So, for the purposes of clarity for those who seek to denigrate the work of the fine officers involved in the Police Force and ASIO, I'd like to read into the record the coroner's findings with respect to this matter. The coroner's findings read:
My investigation has revealed that the men and women who work in this increasingly complex field of counter-terrorism are committed, courageous and worthy of our utmost respect, and their commitment to preserving our national security is exemplary.
It must not be forgotten that the events I have investigated occurred in a vastly different landscape to the present.
Numan's death occurred within days of an Islamic State fatwa, the impact of which could not be reasonably foreseen. There had been no terrorist attack world-wide of the nature of Numan's attack on Officers A and B.
In the months prior to his death, Numan had settled on a course to fight overseas. He had been radicalised. In hindsight, several significant events occurred in the days prior to his death that may have culminated in Numan's decision to carry out an opportunistic attack on police officers.
However, absent hindsight, I consider the risk assessments and decisions made to meet with Numan on that fateful night could not be reasonably subject to criticism.
I find that Numan engaged in a course of conduct that involved radicalisation and behaviour that was increasingly dangerous, ultimately causing his death.
I find that the gunshot that caused Numan's death was fired by Officer A, but that other non-fatal tactical options available to Officer A would not have prevented the potentially fatal injuries being inflicted on officer B by Numan.
I make no adverse findings against any of the officers involved in the incident.
I express my sincere condolences to Numan's family who have acted with unwavering composure throughout my investigation, irrespective of the immense grief they experience.
I also express my condolences to all the officers who were involved in this incident, in particular Officers A and B, whose lives have been changed immeasurably.
I know both Officers A and B and proudly say that I know them. I hope for them that this coroner's finding brings them closure to a very traumatic event that will deeply impact the rest of their lives.
BlazeAid
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Deputy Speaker) (10:35): In February this year, the communities of Dunedoo, Cassilis and Coolah suffered a catastrophic event—a bushfire that started to the east of Sir Ivan Dougherty Drive. Over the next several days the fire destroyed 55,000 hectares of valuable farmland, thousands of kilometres of fencing, just under 40 homes, numerous woolsheds and the village of Uarbry—the church, the hall and most of the homes. I happened to fly over the area on my way to Canberra on the Sunday of that fire, and the firestorm sweeping the area was one of the most sinister things I've ever seen. The community was absolutely devastated. I spoke to one farmer who lost 348 cows in that fire and, later, had to sell another hundred that had been burnt and weren't able to be kept. That's a lot of money! Not to mention the home on his property, the woolshed, the yards and several pieces of machinery, including trucks and tractors. It's very hard to come back from there.
But very shortly after, the organisation called BlazeAid came to town and, under the leadership of Laurie Dawson—who, incidentally, was still in the area after the Warrumbungle fire four years earlier—set up camp at the Dunedoo showground. I recently had the privilege of spending three days fencing with BlazeAid. They are still there and will be in that area until the end of September. This is the magnitude of what they've done: 977 volunteers so far have cleared 653 kilometres of burnt fence and replaced that with 695 kilometres of new fence. They've done 7,931 volunteer days, accumulating 47,586 hours. If you put that at six hours per day, at $20 an hour—and they're worth much more than that—that's $951,720 worth of volunteer work! For the last six months, the local community have been feeding this camp on a roster basis, and they've served up 20,181 meals in that time. I would like to pay tribute to BlazeAid and to the people who volunteered, whether for a couple of days or—like Dennis Osborne, who was in charge of the team I was in—six months. That's a mighty effort. The people of Dunedoo and Cassilis and the farmers of that area very much appreciate what you've done, and I'm sure many of them would not be on the land without the assistance of BlazeAid.
Safety Bay Senior High School
Marriage Equality
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (10:38): In late July I had the chance to visit my old school, Safety Bay Senior High School. The grounds have changed a little. There are a few new buildings, and the uniform has changed for the better. It was fantastic to speak to over 60 students from the Pathfinders academic excellence program, explaining a little bit of what goes on in this place and answering questions they had about important policy and global issues. Every time I go to these things I am amazed at the enthusiastic nature and positive, open attitudes of the students and their teachers. Congratulations must go to the program coordinator, Ms Kirstie Young-Evans, and all of the students at the Safety Bay Senior High School.
The questions from students are pointed. At every high school, including Safety Bay, I am asked where I stand on marriage equality. I am asked because these smart, savvy young people cannot believe that we in this place are still talking about this and not getting on with the job of allowing everyone to marry. I always encourage every Australian to participate in the democratic process and enrol to vote, but now it is more important than ever for young people to get active, get involved and get enrolled. Now that the government has delivered us a non-compulsory postal survey on the issue of marriage equality, it is the time for young people everywhere to enrol to vote and ensure that their voice for the future is heard so that equality can be made real.
I say to the strong, smart, dynamic young people of Rockingham, Kwinana and across Western Australia: 'This is your time. This is your opportunity to make a very real difference to the Australia that you want to live in and that you want your friends and family to live in. Don't be resting on the sidelines for this moment. When you're a bit older and people ask you how you helped achieve marriage equality, make sure that you can say that you got involved, that you stood up for equality and that you voted.' I will be voting yes for marriage equality and I hope that young Australians will be too.
This won't be the last time young Australians will be asked to move this country forward. It really is an exciting time to be a young Australian. Once we have turfed out this listless, leaderless, lacklustre Liberal government we will be able to progress important national issues about the future of Australia, issues that young Australians care deeply about—reconciliation and agreement making with our Indigenous brothers and sisters, who have lived in this country for over 60,000 years, and ensuring that a person born here is no longer barred from being the Australian head of state. The young people I spoke with at my old school at Safety Bay will live to see Australia become a republic and to see our Indigenous peoples take their rightful place in the Constitution of Australia. First, young Australians must enrol to vote now so that they can vote yes for marriage equality in this country and make marriage equality a reality.
Mental Health
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (10:41): As I make this speech here and now there are many women who are new mums in my electorate of Chisholm and across Australia who have suffered a sleepless night. However, their sleepless night is unrelated to their baby's needs. They also may be dealing with sadness, generalised worry, lethargy, constant crying, and a loss of self-esteem or confidence. Some of these women have gone from demanding full-time jobs and a fantastic career trajectory to being home with just baby. Their former control and command of their prior job only exacerbates their current feelings of helplessness, anxiety, uncontrollable emotions, and withdrawing from family and friends. Some have gone through enormous hurdles and emotional pain in numerous IVF cycles to finally hold in their arms what they so yearned for only to feel even more miserable for feeling ungrateful for life blessing them with their child.
These women are suffering from perinatal depression or anxiety, which can affect a woman during pregnancy and after the birth of a child. The wellbeing of a woman's mental health during and after childbirth is often not identified, even by the woman herself, as it is often counterintuitive to personal and societal expectations that this should be a happy time. Indeed, many of those struggling blame themselves, feel guilty and consequently feel very alone as they fail to talk openly and honestly about their thoughts, feelings and experiences.
There is still a significant lack of awareness, understanding or empathy in the Australian community about the signs and symptoms of this illness. As many as one in five expecting or new mums and one in 10 expecting new dads will experience perinatal anxiety or depression. Signals and symptoms of perinatal anxiety include sleep disturbance actually unrelated to the baby's sleep patterns, sadness or crying, persistent generalised worry, loss of confidence, declining self-esteem and withdrawal from family and friends. If these symptoms last for more than two weeks and negatively affect an expectant or new parent's ability to live a normal life with their baby, then it's time to seek support.
Under the superb leadership of Terri Smith, CEO of Perinatal Anxiety and Depression Australia, otherwise known as PANDA, a national helpline is operational to support women and families affected by anxiety and depression. I'm proud as a member of the Turnbull government that we have given additional funding to increase the helpline's operating hours by 50 per cent. If anyone is listening to this speech feels they may be struggling with this condition or have these symptoms, the national helpline is available to them right now. The number is 1300726306 from 9 am to 7.30 pm Monday to Friday. Please seek help; please call. The sooner people struggling with this seek support, the sooner they will recover. There is a highly trained compassionate person waiting at the end of that line—1300726306—who will provide you with a confidential and safe space to take the first step to recovery.
Kingston Electorate: Small Business
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:44): I rise today to congratulate all the award winners of the inaugural Hallett Cove Business Association Local Business Awards. In my electorate of Kingston, there are many small businesses that are the backbone of economic growth and employment in our community. Our region is home to many longstanding businesses—shops, stores and services—that have been around for decades and have turned into important local institutions. I'm excited when I see many new small businesses open up in our region. I've met many business owners who've taken that leap of faith to pursue a passion or an idea and open a small business in the southern suburbs of Adelaide.
We're very fortunate in the southern suburbs to have a number of business associations that support our small businesses. Running a small business can be challenging. Business associations are really important to exchange ideas, support small businesses, provide advice and, importantly, advocate on their behalf. One such business association is the Hallett Cove Business Association, which is chaired by Marie and also has a very dedicated committee who work incredibly hard to ensure that small businesses in the area connect and are supported. That is why it was wonderful that one of their initiatives has been to have these important awards. They wanted to recognise some of the outstanding small businesses in the area.
I was very privileged to attend the awards night and would like to take the opportunity to formally congratulate the winners. Firstly, Business of the Year, won by the Hallett Cove Bakery. Owners Shaun and Sandra—and their daughter, Bek—started this award-winning bakery after moving from England only nine years ago. It's no surprise they also won the hospitality category. Andrew and Victoria from Brighton Pianos won the retail category. Their service and store has been operating in Adelaide for 35 years now. Mick and the team at Midcoast Tyres and Mechanical Sheidow Park won the trades category—congratulations. Kirsty from SwiftClean won the 'professional under 5' category. Kirsty only recently started SwiftClean and she prides herself on the team's attention to detail. Glenn and the team at Harcourts Plus won the 'professional over 5' category award. Natalie from Abode of Beauty won 'outstanding customer service'. Natalie has over 22 years of experience in the beauty industry.
Congratulations to all the winners of those awards. There were many, many nominees. Just so you know, there were about 80 nominations for these awards, which shows a real vibrancy and sense of healthy competition in the local area. Congratulations to all the nominees but, especially, to the award winners. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) (10:47): Before I throw the call, I will acknowledge in the Chamber our guests, the deputy secretary-general to the Taiwan speaker. You're welcome here in the Federation Chamber.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Corangamite Electorate: Building Better Regions Fund
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (10:47): I too acknowledge our guests from Taiwan in the chamber today.
It's my great pleasure to rise and celebrate the wonderful projects that have been awarded funding under the Building Better Regions Fund, a very important fund for regional Australia—particularly, of course, for my electorate of Corangamite.
Kids Plus Foundation received nearly $1.5 million dollars to build a wonderful new disability centre the foundation. This is a great win for Shaun Cannon and his wonderful team. Most of their children who receive services have cerebral palsy, and Kids Plus Foundation do an extraordinary job in our community. They'll be able to triple the services that they provide with this new centre. There were tears and great celebrations all-round when this particular grant was announced.
I was also delighted to announce $245,000 for the Birregurra community group's 'I Have a Hall in My Heart' project. Again, it's a great community project to update the wonderful historic hall in Birregurra—a $500,000 project. Diversitat will receive $314,000 for another wonderful project, called The Diversability Centre, providing assistance for CALD community members in Geelong seeking help under the NDIS and other disability services.
The wonderful Winchelsea netball club has received $200,000. I was absolutely delighted to be joined by Senator Fiona Nash, the Minister for Regional Development, to make this announcement. That's been a great aspiration of the club to build proper facilities for the netballers—a $500,000 project. We are very, very proud of our significant contribution to that project. This is a wonderful program, recognising the critical role that these groups play in regional Australia, and it builds on the $13.3 million already awarded under the previous incarnation of the fund, the National Stronger Regions Fund.
Under that fund, Queenscliff received some $3.5 million from the Turnbull government. I'm absolutely delighted that, after convening a community meeting, the Borough of Queenscliffe is now looking at compromises in relation to the location of the eco cabins that are funded under that project. I know there's a lot of community resistance to placing those cabins on Shortland Bluff. Now that Point Lonsdale Lighthouse Reserve has been listed for potential national heritage priority assessment, we are very hopeful that that assessment might extend to historic parts of Queenscliff. Again, this is another example of how the Turnbull government is standing up for regional Australia.
Herbert Electorate: Energy
Townsville Fashion Festival
Ms O'TOOLE (Herbert) (10:50): I rise in this place today on behalf of the many small businesses in my electorate. The fact is that the cost of electricity in my electorate of Herbert is rising and becoming more unaffordable every day. Small businesses are already struggling, and the single most frustrating issue is the cost of energy. It appears that we have a federal government that has no plan to address energy costs now or into the future.
Since I was elected I have been visiting a locally-owned business in my community each week. The main purpose of my visits is to promote the 'buy local' message and to touch base with business owners to listen to their successes and talk through their challenges. One business owner told me that he cannot afford to keep his air-conditioning running throughout the day and that he and his wife have developed some creative ways to cool his premises without using the air-conditioning. That is a challenging feat when you live in the very hot and humid tropics of North Queensland.
Since 16 January North Queensland has experienced an unprecedented level of investment in renewable energy, with over 780 megawatts of large-scale projects either commencing construction or securing financial support. These projects will deliver over $1.6 billion to the infrastructure spend in North Queensland and will create over 1,400 jobs during construction. Private industry is recognising and investing in the renewable energy opportunities in Townsville. For our community to thrive we need the federal government to deliver a national energy plan immediately to help small business reduce their operating costs.
I visit a diverse range of small businesses, and recently I met with a very talented local artist and fabric designer, Pip from Pipsilk. Pip is a nurse who is focusing on her passion and talent for screen printing and fashion design. Pip operates from the Textile Collective by Emerging Designers store in one of our local shopping centres. Her amazing images are on fashion garments, cushions, scarves and greeting cards. Pip and some of her designer colleagues who market their fashion at the textile collective store presented outstanding wearable art and fashion garments at the recently held Townsville Fashion Festival, which was a roaring success.
The Townsville Fashion Festival is an annual event in Townsville's must-do-and-see calendar. The Townsville Fashion Festival provides an opportunity for local fashion designers to showcase their original and creative designs. This year the festival highlighted an amazing array of wearable art, body painting and unique fashion garments. This is something quite uniquely different for Townsville. Pip, along with many other emerging designers, put on incredibly innovative shows, and I commend them and their committee for all of their hard work and dedication.
Small businesses in our community are struggling. The cost of wholesale electricity prices have doubled under the Abbott-Turnbull government, yet, in the 2017-18 budget, it delivered absolutely nothing for Townsville's water security and energy infrastructure. (Time expired)
Bunyip & District Soccer Club
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (10:54): The Coodabeen Champions ask every Saturday morning: what have you learnt today? I've learnt today that the people of Corangamite are in very good hands under the stewardship of their member, Sarah Henderson. I would also like to talk about the Building Better Regions Fund, because it was from it that a $900,000 grant went to the Bunyip Strikers soccer club. Adrian Gatti said it was 'great news for a little town with a big heart'.
But none of this would have happened without Tony Arrigo. I will read to you Tony's story about the creation of the Bunyip Soccer Club:
It was a dream come true for me to establish a soccer club in Bunyip. I didn't have the time when I had a young family. Once I retired in 2007, though, my wife Carmelina said to speak to a few people about establishing something. Initially I spoke to Bill Pearson and Alan Cole.
After an expression of interest was published locally, about 50 people turned up at the Bunyip Hall. I thought that was very encouraging. In 2008 I shopped around for a committee for the club and after six to eight months I had everyone together.
Next I had to get permission to start up a soccer field at the recreation reserve. The request was granted by the reserve committee and the Cardinia Shire Council and we were given the west side of the reserve.
Next began the work to establish a proper playing field, something that was achieved through the efforts of community volunteers and donations from businesses around the town. A lot of time was spent by volunteers raising money to buy goals and soil.
It took 12 months to get the ground up to scratch and we started playing interclub matches. In 2009, we began getting ready for competition with gala days and friendly games with nearby clubs, applying to the Football Federation of Victoria to get permission to play in a league.
It meant the ground had to be up to scratch and compliant with all the standards. In the beginning the conditions were difficult and we were running lighting from a lead that was plugged into the kiosk, so the kids could see in the winter and for the seniors to train. The kiosk was also a source of water and drinks.
Lighting was organised in late 2010 or early 2011 with help from Member for Bass Ken Smith and several other politicians. In 2010 we were accepted into the metropolitan league. The numbers have always been good—around 150 to begin with and around 200 now—and we have six playing teams.
I would like to congratulate and thank Russell—
that is, me—
the volunteers and Cardinia Shire Council for all its support. I feel so proud too that Cardinia Shire Council named Arrigo Avenue after Carmelina and I.
That's a great story from Tony. It's a good story about an Italian migrant who brought soccer to Bunyip and made it a tradition for time to come.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): I thank the honourable member for McMillan and offer my affirmation of your contribution in the community.
Kingsford Smith Electorate: Australian Surfing Walk of Fame
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:57): One of the joys of representing the seaside electorate of Kingsford Smith is the wonderful surfing culture that we have in our community. Each year, members of our community gather together to celebrate that wonderful surfing culture with the Maroubra Beach Breaks Carnival and to induct a new round of legends into the Australian Surfing Walk of Fame, which exists at Maroubra Beach.
The Surfing Walk of Fame was initiated in 2006 and recognises and celebrates the outstanding achievement of Australia's leading surfers and surf lifesavers. In their honour, a bronze plaque is laid into the promenade at the beach and a large crowd gathers for the unveiling of the plaques each year. This year's inductees were a special group of four people, including ironwoman Candice Warner; Olympian and surf lifesaving champion, Graham 'Johno' Johnson; pro surfer, Tony White; and surfing champion and local mentor, Kevin 'Davo' Davidson.
Candice Warner first competed professionally at the age of 14 in the Ironwoman Series. At 16, she was the New South Wales state ironwoman champion, and in January 2008 Candice qualified for a spot in the 2008 Nutri-Grain Ironwoman Series. She won 19 Surf Life Saving Australia medals—a worthy inductee. Graham Johnson represented Australia in the 1972 Munich Olympic Games in the K4 1,000, was president of Australian Canoeing from 1977 to 1984 and is a life member of Australian Canoeing. He's also a life member of the Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club and won a national surf life saving title. Former professional surfer Tony White was a pioneer at pro surfing. He was a champion of the Gunston 500 in South Africa in 1977 and the Stubbies Surf Classic and Coca-Cola Surfabouts from 1977 to 1980. Davo, Kevin Davidson, is a local legend in Maroubra. He was champion of the Coca-Cola Surfabout in 1978 and a mentor to many young local surfers.
The crowd was treated to a cracking day of beautiful weather and a very large swell. They saw a surfing competition, a skateboard competition, sand sculptors and local craft stores with face painting. The young guns also kept people entertained with the 2017 grommet state surf titles, throwing up some spectacular surfing amid powerful waves. Jai Glinderman and Cedar Leigh-Jones claimed the titles, taking out the under-14 divisions respectively.
I congratulate all of those who were inducted into the Australian Surfing Walk of Fame recently at Maroubra. I thank them for their service to our nation, our community and surfing, and congratulations to Randwick council on running another spectacular event.
Lester, Mr Kunmanara, OAM
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (11:00): Last week, Mr Kunmanara Lester was buried on his ancestral homelands on the APY Lands in South Australia. I am very sorry to have missed the occasion—I was here in parliament. I do express my deepest condolences to his family. I only met Mr Lester twice. I was elected to this place in 2007 and, by that time, he had largely retired from public life. But, when I did meet him, I found him very considered and respectful. He spoke quietly, but I also sensed a great inner strength.
Mr Lester's life was changed irrevocably when, as a child, a black mist drifted into his home community on the APY lands as a result of the British nuclear tests. It made much of his group and his family sick, and eventually led to Mr Lester losing his eyesight—he became blind.
Mr Lester was, by any measure, one of the most significant Aboriginal public figures of his generation. And I say, of his blindness that maybe it was the making of Kunmanara. It certainly changed his life in a substantial way but, for a man who would have been a crack stockman, like his forebears and his uncles, as a blind leader of his nation, he became an impassioned and reasoned campaigner for the rights of his people.
His resolute advocacy was indispensable in gaining recognition and compensation for his people for the damage caused from the British atomic tests and, also, he comfortably sits amongst the legendary Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara leaders who negotiated the handback of the APY Lands under the Tonkin administration in South Australia in 1991.
He didn't rant and rave. He stood strongly with his people. He was instrumental in the creation the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Park at Uluru, and I think he probably bridged the divide between white and black Australia in many ways. He just bargained and spoke powerfully for a better deal for his people. He will be missed by many but, most notably, by his family, and I wish them all the very best in this time of sadness. He has contributed greatly to this nation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Aged Care
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (11:03): I 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 village are unacceptable; and
(e) older Australians should not be exploited; and
(2) calls on the 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.
Ms RYAN: I am pleased to move this motion today to support retirees across the country. Clearly, there is an issue in our retirement village communities where people are feeling very unhappy about the treatment they are receiving once they move into retirement villages and, certainly, very unhappy about the contractual arrangements they find themselves in and the penalties that they are paying on leaving a retirement village. This was highlighted by the ABC Four Corners episode on 26 June, which focused on a company called Aveo. That episode clearly demonstrated that this is a national issue and that state-by-state legislation may not be the best way forward in this space to protect our retirees.
I was inspired to raise this motion after hearing the horror story of Christine and David Robinson in my electorate. Their negative retirement community experience is not an isolated one and speaks to a broader issue that demands national attention and action. Christine and David made the decision to move into the Point Cook retirement village at Point Cook, which comes under the umbrella of Retirement Communities Australia, which has two such places in my electorate. They took this decision after David had a quadruple bypass. They were promised a life of leisure and a peaceful retirement. However, when they got there the reality was much bleaker: phones didn't work, toilets were overflowing and the amenities were rarely in service. Their supposed retirement haven became a retirement nightmare. They were so dismayed and uncomfortable that they did what most of us would do in that situation: they tried to leave. That was when their problem became a genuine source of stress and frustration, and, like many across the country, they want something done about this.
From the time they tried to leave the village, it took them 16 months to get out of their contract. When it came to selling their property, they weren't allowed to advertise or go through their own agent. Because this was a new retirement village, the owners directed potential buyers to new units, while Christine and David were left paying maintenance fees. When they did end up selling the home, the aged-care provider took $46,000. The property was allegedly sold for $340,000, and they received $294,000. I've seen the letter they received to convey this information. It lists two separate deductions from the sales price, both listed as 'departure payment', but it in no way explains why those charges had been levied. To this day, the Robinsons have not been able to get a thorough explanation of the two fees.
Just imagine dealing with this nightmare scenario while recovering from major surgery—a quadruple bypass, which, having lived that experience myself with my partner, I know can be a six-month recovery. It was a nightmare for this couple. They came to see me in my office accompanied by someone from the Victorian Consumer Action Law Centre, who have been looking into this space for some time. I acknowledge the work they've been doing in Victoria, their recommendations to a Victorian inquiry and their passion about making sure that we in the federal parliament address this issue and come up with a national solution, because that's what we need. I also spoke to the member for Batman, who has similar issues. Aveo are operating in his electorate, and he has constituents with very similar concerns.
The other concerning thing that Christine shared with me is the number of people whom I know personally who have gone into retirement villages and have subsequently left, finding them not to be the ideal place they thought they were going to be. They are people who, for the most part, have worked very hard on their superannuation balances, and my concern in this space is that there is a bit of a honey pot happening here. People are seeing superannuation funds and are attracting people in through what can sometimes be 100-page contracts. People are getting into these places and are then finding that they are not happy and are having to leave again. The people that I'm talking about are people I would consider to be very bright and very competent. If they are being drawn into this, I pity people who are not so competent.
I welcome this being put on the COAG agenda for 31 August. I would encourage the Minister for Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, the member for Hasluck, to ensure that we get a national solution at that meeting to protect retirees across this country from people seeking to put their hands in retirees' pockets.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): Having heard the motion, I now call for the motion to be seconded.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (11:09): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Dr McVEIGH (Groom) (11:09): Today I rise to speak in relation to stronger consumer protections for older Australians. Firstly, I want to say that, like many other Australians, I was shocked by the allegations revealed in recent media program investigations into some retirement villages. Like many in the House, I have ageing parents and, all going well, I look forward to becoming one myself in the coming decades.
For most of us, care will become a significant consideration in our futures. I'm a family man. My wife and I have six children. She is one of four siblings, and I am one of five. Family has always been the focus and the biggest part of our lives, and the mistreatment of our older Australians is therefore simply abhorrent to all of us. These are people who have led amazing lives and have done their bit for the country through thick and thin. They are the backbone of our communities. They need to feel safe; they need to feel secure. They need our support, and the government is determined to ensure that is there for them.
Moving into a retirement village is not only a lifestyle decision but also a major financial decision, and many can be confused by the complex arrangements that are laid out before them. If things don't work out, high exit fees might leave some without enough money to seek alternative or more suitable accommodation. This can then compound the problem. None of us want to be forced to live where we don't wish.
As our Australian population continues to age, the retirement home industry continues to boom. There are now around 200,000 older Australians living in retirement villages across the country, and their cohort is increasing faster than any other age-specific option. Many of these fall into two categories: older retirees relocating because of declining health and younger retirees concerned about future health needs and seeking a relaxed lifestyle within a village provided with shared amenities. These people are simply looking for a simpler life, one filled with joy and happiness—not a life consumed with financial concerns or fears about their future. The health, safety and wellbeing of older Australians are of paramount importance to the government and, I am sure, to both sides of the House. Any mistreatment of older Australians is simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
Following recent reports, the government committed to expediting work across relevant portfolios and with states and territories, of course, who have ultimate responsibility for retirement villages. We are seeking to develop short-, medium- and long-term solutions, but the key imperative, of course, is to deliver better results for the future of our vulnerable, older Australians by developing with states and territories a nationally coordinated approach to ensure the adequacy of regulation, particularly so that we can ensure we don't see any further reports such as those we have seen recently. The government will be considering the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry into aged care and the Productivity Commission report into caring for older Australians, as it has already been doing in the context of these recently highlighted cases to which I referred.
My colleague, the Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Michael McCormack, will be raising this issue in an upcoming meeting with consumer affairs ministers this month. While retirement villages, as I said, are regulated by state legislation, retirement village contracts are also subject to Australian consumer law, which prohibits unfair contract terms. The minister will be considering the effectiveness of current legislation and enforcement arrangements covering the retirement industry.
As I've said, the welfare of older Australians, particularly those who have sought the protections, the comfort, the safety and the security of retirement villages, must be prioritised and their needs must be protected by federal and state governments alike. Certainly in my electorate of Groom, a very popular retirement capital, if you like, for much of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales, particularly from regional areas, the aged-care industry is a significant industry for our local community. Stories of lack of care or maltreatment of older Australians, as I have said before, is abhorrent to all Australians and particularly, in our case, to those in my city of Toowoomba. This issue must be bipartisan. We must work together for the benefit of all Australians.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (11:14): I thank the member for Lalor for putting this very important motion before the chamber and I reflect that, like both the member for Lalor and the member for Groom, when the Four Corners program recently aired I also had a lot of locals contacting me very distressed by what were quite shocking and appalling exposes in that particular program. It reflects the fact, I believe, that the community standard is very clearly one that says our older Australians deserve our best protection and respect, that they are entitled to a dignified and quality retirement life. When there are cases where people purposefully and with complete disrespect seek to treat them simply as a cash cow and to take advantage of them—and, as the member for Lalor said, that increasingly is the case, as we see superannuation become a more established form of retirement funding of lifestyle—we need to do something about it. In particular, the issues that were exposed around the nature of these contracts were very concerning. As the member for Lalor and the member for Groom indicated, this is a space where federal governments have an important role to play. Issues such as the very high exit fees, particularly where there is lack of understanding about exactly what those fees are, how they have been accrued and the extraordinary processes that people have to go through in order to exit these retirement villages are of real concern.
I was very moved by the member for Lalor's example of the couple in her electorate. You can just picture or imagine of your own parents, where there has been a major health problem—quadruple bypass heart surgery is a classical example—and then there is all the stress not only of the circumstances but also of having it dragged out over a year because of obstinacy and the difficulty in dealing with these sorts of contracts. It is just completely unacceptable. Any exploitation of this nature of older Australians is an unacceptable situation, and we should be taking action on it.
It is good to see the member for Groom reflect the fact that it should not be an issue of contention in this place. I think we would all see that action on these issues needs to occur. Indeed, Labor is ready to partner with the government to make sure that older Australians can retire with dignity and security not only in their living circumstances—going to some of the issues that are under state control around the regulation of these sorts of villages—but also in their financial arrangements and the issues we can have a say on around contracts and financial matters.
It is a really important to see success at the COAG process and to find some nationally consistent legislations and protections, particularly consumer protections in this space. Sadly, as our society becomes more complex, we are increasingly seeing that there are people who will look for an opportunity to exploit the funding that is available to improve people's lives for their own benefit and profit. I reflect, for example, on the scandals we have had over recent years around the vocational education sector. The government had the right intentions in providing funding to people to better themselves through education, but we saw terrible scandals where people were using that opportunity to exploit people. To me, this is a very similar thing. I've had a number of concerns raised with me locally about people's ageing relatives not only in the area of retirement villages. Trying to organise care for elderly parents has become so complex and difficult around aged-care package allocations. This is one issue I regularly come up against.
We need to make sure we get these systems working effectively for families and for our elderly so that they do have a life not only of dignity and respect and financial security but also of quality, so they can actually enjoy their retirement years and have some real benefit out of what should be a great Australian retirement system.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:19): It's a privilege to have the opportunity to reflect on this motion in this place, particularly because such a high share of Goldstein residents are people who either are at a stage of living in a retirement village or may choose to do so into the future. That's why I think this issue is of broad interest to everybody in the parliament. We're very cognisant of the fact that we have to make sure that people who are entering a vulnerable stage in their life have safety and security at the heart of their living arrangements. It is not just physical safety and security but also financial safety and security so that people can retire with confidence into the future and make sure that they're not in a position where they can be taken advantage of by either companies or other individuals.
Retirement villages play an enormously important part of our retirement system, making sure people can transition to a life in some form of supported care and to an environment where they can use communal facilities—whether it's dining room, emergency or medical facilities—and other support services so that they can enjoy the remainder of their lives in comfort and security. We know that there needs to be proper regulation to make sure that the retirement system is available for everybody to achieve that security. That's why, like with other members, I was particularly shocked at the recent Four Corners investigation which found a number of concerning incidents in retirement villages, including one within the Goldstein electorate.
I need to disclose that I am a shareholder of Aveo and have taken a personal hit, but that is irrelevant to the actual discussion. What we actually need is to make sure that we prioritise the interests of residents first and people such as shareholders, like myself, later. To do so, I've connected and reached out to people who were involved in that program or informing that program. Recently, I met with Gwyneth Jones to hear her firsthand story. We were accompanied by another resident of Aveo Bentleigh Retirement Village, Margaret Leigh, as well as a volunteer advocate for Ms Jones by the name of Mr Alan Kohn. Ms Jones has been a member of the Goldstein community for most of her life and has been a long-term resident of Aveo's facility. She has raised very direct concerns with me about the experiences that she has had. She feels that she has been poorly treated as a consequence of the policies of Aveo.
There are other people who have raised similar particular concerns with me as part of a broader discussion around abuse of the elderly. I am very cognisant of that. That's why, when the Attorney-General, the honourable George Brandis QC, came to the Goldstein electorate recently, we created the opportunity to bring together different advocates as part of an internal forum in the Goldstein office to discuss some of the issues around abuse of the elderly to make sure that all constituents' concerns were heard and had a direct connection back to the most senior levels of government. I'd particularly like to thank Serge Sardo, Graham Westerway, Dominic Horne, Debbie Allum, Melissa Le Mesurier and Sally Costar, who all came from different agencies—including local hospitals, primary healthcare networks and family and community support organisations—to inform that discussion and to connect directly with the Attorney-General about some of the challenges we face with elder abuse. But they're not the only people who have reached out and connected directly with me about some of the concerning stories that they have heard in retirement villages. I recently had a conversation with Bonnie Roberts from Fairway Hostel in Sandringham. Fairway Hostel is an outstanding aged-care support home, but Bonnie, very seriously, raised with me her concerns at the reports she's seen and also reports from her friends about the situation that some people face in retirement care.
That's why this resolution is so important. The heart of the discussion is not just around regulation—and that's very important—and entry and exit fees but human experience and the extent to which people can retire with confidence and security. We know, with an ageing population, this is going to become a more sensitive issue into the future. That is precisely why it's important to take the opportunity from some of the problems that have been raised now to fix the system for everybody. Let's face it, even some of the members who are present today are going to one day need support and assisted care in retirement villages or, eventually, aged care. We have to be mindful of the fact that every Australian is going on this journey through different stages of life. If we want the system that's going to protect every Australian, it requires action by government working collaboratively with the states through COAG processes now. That is what will deliver the best interests of the Australian people and, more particularly, the best interests of the people of Goldstein.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa) (11:24): I thank the member for Lalor for moving this motion and for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 184,000 Australians who currently live in retirement villages, as well as the many thousands more considering such a move. As highlighted by my colleagues, the number of older Australians choosing to live in retirement villages continues to rise, with approximately 5.7 per cent of Australians over 65 currently living in a retirement village. As these numbers increase, it is important that governments consider the legislative framework that governs their operation, to ensure that the rights of residents are protected, that people can retire with dignity and that the retirement industry is free from exploitation.
In my electorate of Werriwa we've seen the development of new retirement villages in the new land releases on the city outskirts, as well as a number of villages throughout the electorate. While a number of these retirement village operators are well respected throughout my community for their work, sadly, a number of constituents have reported to my office that they fear raising issues with the village operators, owing to the mistreatment of other residents who've spoken out. Not only have we heard about complex contract and exorbitant exit fees charged by some operators but we have also heard that, in some retirement villages in my electorate, operators have tried to force residents to choose a service provider for the NBN and their landline phones that is owned by the retirement village operator themselves. Under the New South Wales Retirement Villages Act 1999, the operator of a retirement village must not restrict the right of a resident of a village to purchase goods and services that a person hasn't chosen, let alone restrict a resident to choose a provider owned by the operator.
What makes matters worse is that, because of the excessive exit fees charged by some operators, residents can find themselves unable to afford to leave a village, while being forced to live under terms and conditions of a contract they didn't fully understand because it was designed to be opaque and confusing. As noted by the chief executive of the Consumer Action Law Centre, Gerard Brody, in relation to the Aveo contracts discussed in the Four Corners program, not only are they over 120 pages in length but they are also dense, they are hard to understand and they are legalistic. It's not good enough that residents are asked to sign contracts that deliberately obfuscate fees and charges, which most reasonable people would consider excessive. It is also completely unacceptable that the drive for profit by some parts of this industry has been led by unethical behaviour and the exploitation of thousands of residents who were signed up with providers.
On behalf of all residents in Werriwa living in retirement villages and all those across the country in the same position, I call on the Turnbull government to urgently commit to the development of a national regulatory framework for the retirement village sector, including simplification of contracts and strong consumer protection. While I and my Labor colleagues are pleased that Turnbull government has acted on the member for Maribyrnong's call for an immediate review of retirement living contracts with consumer affair ministers from each state and territory, it is important that that push for reform doesn't end at the COAG meeting scheduled for 31 August.
As highlighted by the practices exposed in the Four Corners program, there's an urgent need for a national regulatory framework for retirement villages to protect the rights of residents and hold unscrupulous operators to account. The Commonwealth must work with all of the states and territories to make this a reality. Consumer protections in the retirement villages will not only protect residents but also ensure that those operators who are doing the right thing by their residents are not forced to compete against ASX-listed corporations who are more concerned with profit margins than the dignity of retiring Australians.
Labor is committed to ensuring that all Australians have choice, control and confidence in the decision they make in retirement. Our communities should be age-friendly places where older Australians are supported to live independently, to contribute to the community and to age with dignity. I look forward to continuing the campaign for stronger consumer protections and proper regulation of this industry, and I once again thank the member for Lalor for moving this motion. I commend the motion to the chamber.
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (11:29): When you get to my age, you've not only lived aged care but you've administered aged care and you've been around aged care all of your life. I had the great pleasure for nearly 20 years of my life of being in my own show band called the Trutones, with Len McGill, Johnny Cosgrove, Mick Cook, Lloyd Poole, Frank Bunt and a few others. This week, Glen Campbell was taken by Alzheimer's. My dad succumbed to the same thing. I was thinking about Tony Wright's beautiful article in The Age on the weekend. The band was together last week for their 50-year anniversary. One song came to mind that we used every night. It was based around Glen Campbell's Gentle On My Mind. He didn't write it but he made it a hit. To me, it was a love song, not only to the boys in the band but to our families who were around us, protected us and looked after us. You have to remember that this band worked four nights a week for nearly 20 years. The lyrics to the song Gentle On My Mindsay:
It's knowin' that your door is always open
And your path is free to walk
That makes me tend to leave my sleepin' bag
Rolled up and stashed behind your couch
And it's knowin' I'm not shackled
By forgotten words and bonds
And the ink stains that have dried upon some line
That keeps you in the back roads
By the rivers of my memory
That keeps you ever gentle on my mind
The second verse, where there was a key change, is:
It's not clingin' to the rocks and ivy
Planted on their columns now that bind me
Or something that somebody said because
They thought we fit together walkin'
It's just knowing that the world
Will not be cursing or forgiving
When I walk along some railroad track and find
That you're movin' on the back roads
By the rivers of my memory
And for hours you're just gentle on my mind
It steps up again and continues:
Though the wheat fields and the clothes lines
And the junkyards and the highways come between us
And some other woman's cryin' to her mother
'Cause she turned and I was gone
Then there are these amazing lines:
I still might run in silence
Tears of joy might stain my face
And the summer sun might burn me till I'm blind
But not to where I cannot see
You walkin' on the back roads
By the rivers flowin' gentle on my mind
The last verse, with the last key change, says:
I dip my cup of soup back from a gurglin' cracklin' cauldron
In some train yard
My beard a rustlin' coal pile
And a dirty hat pulled low across my face
Through cupped hands 'round a tin can
I pretend to hold you to my breast and find
That you're waitin' from the back roads
By the rivers of my memory
Ever smilin', ever gentle on my mind
Today we have a shared concern about aged care and moving from working life into retirement villages. There are the pitfalls that the member for Cunningham laid out so gracefully, previous to my address. We have a care that is built around not worry for our future but the full knowledge that we have an ageing population and there are different opportunities for their care. We, as a parliament and as a government, need to actually implement legislation that protects people's vulnerability in their cases.
As I said, when you get to my age, you have lived aged care. I will tell you the experience of my parents. Mum decided she would never, ever go into care, and didn't. Careful what comes out of your mouth! For my in-laws, can I say that every day in aged care was perfect or the situations they found themselves in were perfect? No, they weren't perfect, but they were very good. Basically, across Australia we don't have crooks in the system. We have good people in the system giving very good care. But a few are out of order. I understand that.
This week we lost Glen Campbell. He played such a big part in the song Gentle On My Mind. There are the songs of Frank Sinatra and The Beach Boys. Glen Campbell was involved in all of those songs—the songs of the lives of those going into old age and aged care.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (11:34): The ABC's Four Corners show recently aired a much-publicised expose that revealed just how rife exploitation has become in Australia's aged-care sector. The reports were quite shocking, to say the least. They raised stories of retirement village organisations systematically exploiting vulnerable Australian seniors, employing complex and confusing contracts, and inflicting excessive exit fees upon those who tried to leave. The people who have been targeted helped build our nation. They are our parents and our grandparents. They supported us as we grew up and now, when they need support the most, this ABC report showed they were exploited.
As their parliamentary representatives, we must protect our parents, our grandparents and our seniors. We must develop the legislation that provides them with the necessary protections against this shocking exploitation. Any good government would have seen these reports and fast-tracked considered legislation through the parliament to protect these vulnerable Australians. Any good government would have done this right away. It worries me that the government are wasting their time throwing taxpayer money to big business instead. They are throwing taxpayer money at Rupert Murdoch's Foxtel and taxpayer money at a glorified opinion poll. A lot has been said in the last week or so about the strength of the current Prime Minister. He's held this position for over a year now. What we've seen is cuts to public services. That is what we have seen from a Prime Minister who is trying to tell us that he is strong.
Australian seniors need someone who will stand up for them and who will pass legislation to protect them from callous exploitation—legislation like a national approach for the regulation of retirement village facilities, with stronger consumer protections and consistency of contracts. In lieu of this much-needed national framework, fortunately, for us in Queensland and Queensland seniors, the state Palaszczuk government has stood up where the federal LNP government have not. In recognising the urgency of this issue, Premier Palaszczuk and her housing minister, Mick de Brenni, have fast developed considered and sensible legislation to protect the state's elderly.
Anyone would be confused by the deliberately complex contracts that must be signed upon entering a retirement village. Some of the contracts were 400-pages thick. Queensland Labor's legislation enforces simplified, standard contracts, with a minimum three-week evaluation before signing. To prevent exorbitant fees that will disallow residents the freedom to move from village to village—fees so high that they may actually cost a resident their entire life savings—the Queensland Labor government have legislated for fairer exit fees that must be reasonably declared up-front. To ensure the safety and security of these elderly residents, enforceable behaviour standards will be legislated for village operators.
Queensland Labor are taking huge steps forward in this space. When they recognise a problem, they urgently deliver the legislation that is needed to move our state forward. They are making life easier for Australian seniors. I can't say the same for our federal government, who we have heard quite a lot of times have made life harder for our seniors. There have been things like slashing the energy supplement, leaving pensioners $365 a year worse off. They should be assisting seniors and bringing back measures that help our seniors, people who have given so much in building our nation. Australia really needs a government who will fight for our society's most vulnerable. I call on this Australian government to commit to a national approach to this issue and protect our seniors.
Mr FEENEY (Batman) (11:39): I begin by thanking the member for Lalor for putting forward this motion on retirement villages. In June, Australia was shocked by revelations on the Four Corners program concerning the mistreatment of residents in retirement villages. The retirement village that particularly featured in that program, Veronica Gardens, is located in my electorate of Batman. The mistreatment of residents there has been deeply upsetting to them and has appalled the broader community, and we cannot let this continue.
One of the most horrifying cases is that of Gwyneth Jones, who was forcibly admitted to psychiatric care after repeated run-ins with management at Veronica Gardens. Freedom of information documents show a plan to have her evicted that pre-dates her admission to the hospital. It was only with the assistance of disability advocates that she was able to stop the eviction and receive an apology from the company. It is utterly unacceptable that Gwyneth has had to put her physical and mental wellbeing at stake in pursuing fair treatment from the management body of her own retirement village.
Immediately following the Four Corners program, I had a meeting with residents at Veronica Gardens, and I thanked the residents there for speaking with me honestly and openly about the misconduct and mistreatment they had endured at the hands of Aveo. Residents also voiced their concerns over issues such as complex and confusing contracts, excessive exit fees and the practice of churning residents.
With a growing older demographic, in particular those who are not home owners, low-income households and older residents with high-care needs, housing stock is not keeping up with demand. The current retirement village industry and regulations are not flexible enough to meet the changing needs of our ageing population, who are often moving into these places with the expectation of their social and physical needs being met. Sadly, that is often not the case. It is imperative to have a national approach to regulate the retirement village industry, especially with respect to contract agreements.
It has long been the Labor Party's passion to stand up for the marginalised. Residents in retirement villages like Veronica Gardens deserve our attention and support. As older Australians, they have made great contributions to their society. They deserve to spend their golden years with security and dignity and in quality care. They should not be left stranded in situations like this, where predatory practices are constantly looming over their place of residence and their secure retirement.
As consumers, their rights should be recognised and protected. I join my colleagues in calling on the government to immediately adopt a national approach, making nationally consistent retirement village legislation with stronger consumer protections a national priority. I was delighted on Thursday of last week to meet with the Minister for Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, to discuss how I can work with him to make sure that these priorities are achieved. I am calling on the government to review retirement living contracts, in particular to pursue four objectives: firstly, to support nationally consistent retirement village legislation in contracts, including body corporate and management service contracts; secondly, to ensure transparent easy-to-read contracts; thirdly, for there to be an industry code of conduct; and, fourthly, for there to be efficient, cost-efficient and effective dispute resolution processes, such as an ombudsman, so that people living in these residences can make complaints and receive the treatment they deserve.
It's also important for the retirement living sector to have certainty and consistency in its regulatory environment, so that it can support the choices of older Australians while maintaining its own reputation as a decent and law-abiding industry working in the interests of their consumers and our citizens—older Australians. It's time to act.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) (11:43): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Queensland: Trade
Mr EVANS (Brisbane) (11:43): I 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.
Populism is on the march again around the world and, indeed, in Australia, and it seems the Labor Party in Queensland is very happy to engage in it with the state election just around the corner. Populism is shorthand for protectionism—the antitheses of trade. Our country is our sanctuary, yet we should never be isolationist or inward looking. We should be wary of those who want to again put up the walls, either metaphorical or physical, between nations and people. We should never, ever forget that, over the history of humankind, every sustainable gain in our standard of living has come about from skills, specialisation and trade. The benefits of free trade should need no introduction, yet it seems we need to reiterate the value of trade at every possible opportunity, even if it is just for the benefit of those opposite.
Trade promotes peace. It creates jobs. It stokes investment. It breaks down borders and misunderstanding, and, most importantly, it brings prosperity—sustainable prosperity. Over half a billion people in the Asia-Pacific region have been raised out of abject poverty in recent years, almost entirely as a result of the benefits of trading. Yet, in my home state of Queensland, Labor seems blind not only to the economic history but even to the part of economic history that we're currently living in. In a press release just last month, the Queensland Labor Premier said:
In an Australian first, Cabinet agreed the State Government would no longer be constrained or bound by free trade agreements …
Even worse, in correspondence, the Queensland Labor Minister for Housing and Public Works said:
… we're breaking the Turnbull LNP Government's trade agreements, and they aren't happy. But I couldn't give a toss.
Probably most telling, though, is the way that the Labor Premier is repeatedly quoted, in The Courier Mail, stating that trade doesn't make sense.
Even by Labor's new standards, these statements are a troubling indication of the direction of their party and their policies. Yet, the hypocrisy! The very day before the Labor Premier declared that her government would no longer be bound by these free trade agreements, the Premier wrote to the federal trade minister and said, 'The Queensland government works very closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to promote free trade agreements to benefit Queensland.' Last year, the Premier wrote to Minister Ciobo, wanting the Queensland government to be bound by the revised Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. And that seems to be the track record: every commitment on every government procurement decision Australia has ever made and every free trade agreement involving Queensland has been made with the strong written support of the Queensland government. Barefaced political hypocrisy! It's another case of Labor saying one thing in Brisbane city, when they're talking to other governments or exporters, or in the boardrooms, and quite another thing when they're talking to suburban and regional voters and fishing for populist votes.
That sort of hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed. I can report that two of our major trading partners have raised the matter with the Australian government. The New Zealand trade minister has said publically:
… it's not how trade works — it's a little bit crazy …
The New Zealand government, in the strongest possible terms, has expressed its concern about the developments in Queensland.
Labor don't seem to understand how prosperity is generated; they don't seem to understand trade. They may think that populism might win them a few votes, but let's consider what that policy would cost Queenslanders. Queensland makes more from exporting than it pays in importing. Every Queenslander's prosperity is underpinned by competitive export industries, tapping into huge export markets and potential, particularly across the Asia-Pacific region we're in. Exports are worth well over $60 billion a year and are growing at about three times the rate of the economy as a whole. More than 60 per cent of Queensland's exports go to countries with which Australia has a free trade agreement, and about half a million jobs in Queensland are supported by free trade. I'm happy to quote the Queensland Treasurer himself:
We estimate one in five jobs in Queensland are supported through trade …
The decision by the state Labor government to act in a way that is inconsistent with Australia's free trade agreements puts at risk the very export opportunities that we have in front of us. For the sake of our exporters—indeed, for all Queenslanders—Labor need to abandon their ludicrous policy. Dusting off the old red megaphone of populism might give a good airing to some grievances, but Queensland Labor do not have the answers that Queenslanders deserve.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr Van Manen: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (11:48): I rise to speak on this disgraceful, spineless motion moved by the member for Brisbane about the Queensland government's 'buy Queensland' procurement policy. I notice that the member for Brisbane is echoing the words of the Queensland trade minister, Minister Ciobo, who came out in support of the New Zealand trade minister last week. I didn't see the member for Brisbane or the trade minister wearing their All Blacks jerseys this week. I thought they were Queenslanders! I thought they were supposed to stand up for Queensland. I'm proud to do that. I know that, in his speech, the member for Brisbane quoted the New Zealand trade minister. I think he should actually have a look at what the Queensland government's about—looking after Queenslanders. Far from condemning the Queensland government's policy, the Queensland government should be congratulated on this visionary job-creating initiative. Because Labor governments do not and should not ever apologise for putting Queensland businesses first and for putting Queensland jobs first. We wear maroon jerseys, Member for Brisbane, not All Blacks jerseys. As Anna Bligh said before Cyclone Yasi, 'We're a little bit different up here, but we're proud to be a little bit different'—
Ms Butler: That's right.
Mr PERRETT: I know the member for Griffith is from Far North Queensland. I'm married to a North Queenslander. I thought the trade minister was actually from Far North Queensland as well, but he seems to have forgotten it and transferred over to New Zealand. There is a bit of a rash of that: people leaving Queensland and taking up support for New Zealand. I'm not sure who they're going to vote for in the coming New Zealand elections, but maybe I'll have to give a bit of advice to the Deputy Prime Minister—hopefully, he is supporting the Labor candidate Jacinda Ardern in the New Zealand elections.
I know I will be supporting Queensland, and it might be a little bit difficult for those people not from North Queensland or Queensland to understand how important it is that we focus on Queensland. In particular, anyone that has any connection with Far North Queensland understands the devastation that comes after a tropical cyclone. I know that the member for Herbert would well understand how economies can be devastated after a cyclone. And I would have thought the member for Brisbane, if he had any sense of history—if we look at what happened after 2011 and the floods that devastated inner city Brisbane as well—would know we need to focus on Queensland jobs, because our economy took a hammering. The Palaszczuk government has worked with businesses to address this problem.
The Queensland government's multibillion dollar Queensland procurement strategy and policy will create jobs and opportunities for Queensland—not Kiwis, not South Australians or people from New South Wales, but Queenslanders. This Australia-first policy proudly puts Queenslanders first. We are spending $14 billion a year buying supplies and services, because that is what the Queensland government does, with $4 billion of that invested in infrastructure, building and maintaining the state's roads.
We understand that this is a great policy. Don't take my word for it; take the word from that left-wing think tank, the Queensland chamber of commerce and industry. Now, I'm not quoting from the Auckland Chamber of Commerce; I'm actually quoting from the Queensland chamber of commerce and industry. They have called it a:
… multi-billion dollar shot in the arm for the state's small business and for every region of Queensland.
They also said:
Critics of the policy will label it as anti-competitive and restrictive, CCIQ sees it as levelling the playing field so that the small businesses who employ over 2 million Queenslanders can compete on service and not just be undercut on price.
Labor is sticking up for small business, forgotten by those opposite, who are quite happy to be photographed in front of a tank saying, 'Bring some jobs to Queensland,' this morning but won't actually do the hard yards when it comes to actual policy.
The Palaszczuk government knows how important it is to support businesses that provide jobs to Queensland. I was with Premier Palaszczuk on 14 July when we announced how Labor is working to secure Queensland as the location for Rheinmetall Defence Australia's Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence. Those people standing in front of Parliament House today are late to the game. The Queensland government has already been over in Germany, negotiating with Rheinmetall to make sure that these jobs come to Queensland. They are standing out front, looking for a photo opportunity, and then coming in here criticising the fact that we're going to actually create jobs. This $5 billion Army contract to build up to 10,000 new-generation army vehicles could be a significant coup for Queensland. I would hope those opposite will actually do the right thing. We know that Queensland gets devastated by cyclones, and I would hope that those opposite, who represent Queenslanders, know that we need to do more. Rather than spending $122 million on an unnecessary, non-binding, voluntary postal survey, invest in Queensland.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Government Whip) (11:53): Well, it's interesting to follow the contribution from the member for Moreton. He's normally better than that. There was very little substance in that: he repeated the same line about 50 times. So, for the edification of the member for Moreton, in the electorate I represent, manufacturing industries are up in arms about the risk this creates to their businesses, not just to New Zealand but to many parts of Asia.
I join my colleague and thank the member for Brisbane for bringing this motion to the House. I join my colleague today in condemning a ridiculous and provocative policy, adopted by the Queensland state Labor government.
This Buy Queensland policy's a sham. It implies support for Queensland workers and their industries, and it sounds as though this government is putting Queensland first, but I'm sad to say this is not even close to the truth. The heart of this bogus proposal is Labor's contempt for trade agreements that boost our economic activity every year and the very arrangements that have made Queensland—my home state—a star in the export industry. As a sitting cabinet minister of the Queensland state Labor government said recently, this state Labor government 'couldn't give a toss' about Australia's free trade agreements. Potentially throwing away 500,000 Queensland jobs that depend on trade just shows the contempt they have. The state government have said they'll 'no longer be constrained or bound by free trade agreements'. They say they are proud of muddying Australia's name and its reputation at an international level.
The crux of this matter is that Queensland makes more from exporting than it does from importing. Walking away from trade would cost the Queensland economy over $21 million a year—our trade surplus. Perhaps state Labor are still feeling the need to come up with something that sounds good just as they hit the downhill run to the next election. For the member for Springwood, who made the comment that he doesn't give a toss, I hope that the LNP candidate in Springwood, Julie Talty, holds him well and truly to account for his contempt for export jobs in his electorate. I know we see this approach from Labor all the time at a federal level, but when we see it from state Labor, who demonstrate once again their incapacity to govern Queensland, Queenslanders have a right to be dismayed at the views of this government.
I was speaking last week to Teys Australia, who employ 800 people in my electorate of Forde. With export markets in Japan, Korea and China, they are concerned that this will lead to a loss of confidence in export markets for their products. As I said, they employ over 800 people. Teys' corporate affairs manager called the proposal 'simplistic politics' that fails to show even a basic understanding of how trade works in this country. He said the business relies on the removal of non-tariff trade barriers, which are the biggest impediment to the Queensland company's global competitiveness. I regularly go to other companies that are exporting to the globe and manufacturing top-quality products that compete anywhere.
We can't stand by and let this Queensland state government continue to pursue a policy that is not in the interests of Queenslanders. If the Palaszczuk government proceeds and breaches Australia's free trade agreement, our trading partners will have the opportunity to take retaliatory action and increase barriers to trade. Imagine if one of our trading partners, like Korea, decided to follow Labor and embrace protectionism over trade and apply a 30 per cent penalty on sugar coming from Australia. This would be catastrophic to our cane farmers. The New Zealand trade minister, when he travelled to Australia, raised his concerns personally with this government.
Furthermore, it's not just our exporters who will lose out if this goes ahead. Organisations in my electorate who trade globally are concerned that jobs will be lost. This policy is a complete sham.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (11:59): It's quite bewildering to me that we have these Liberal Party MPs coming into this House and actually choosing to oppose a policy setting that puts Queenslanders first. I would've thought they would've wanted to talk about almost anything else except the Buy Queensland policy that the Palaszczuk government has introduced in Queensland. I would've thought they would've been running away from the idea of standing up and opposing Queensland jobs and opposing providing business to Queensland small businesses. Of course, providing additional work for Queensland small businesses and supporting additional Queensland jobs is exactly what the Buy Queensland policy does. We have people on the Labor side standing up for Queensland jobs and Queensland small businesses, and, in pretty staggering display, people on the Liberal and National side are doing the opposite: coming in here and opposing a 'buy Queensland' policy that puts Queensland first. It is just deeply disturbing.
What we have heard from them today is how unhappy New Zealand is about the fact that the Queensland Government Procurement Strategy is going to favour Queensland businesses and Queensland workers. The member for Moreton was right: are we are going to see people wearing All Blacks jerseys in parliament next? I'm happy to wear my Maroons jersey around. You've seen me in it, Madam Deputy Speaker Bird. Being a New South Welshwoman yourself, I know the Maroons jersey is not your immediate choice, but I certainly I love to wear mine—particularly given we won the State of Origin again this year, I might add. Apparently the Liberals think it's a really good idea to be wandering around in All Blacks jerseys, because that is what they are doing now, in a metaphorical sense.
I love New Zealand; I'm a big fan of New Zealand. But I will not criticise the Queensland Labor government for putting Queenslanders first when it comes to procurement policy. When the Premier announced this policy, she said:
From 1 September 2017, the Government’s new Queensland Procurement Strategy will apply whenever your government purchases goods and services, commissions major projects and infrastructure, or builds the schools, housing and other facilities that each of our regional communities need.
This new strategy builds on opportunities to advance Queensland, to seek out opportunities and deliver more for our local regions.
Our new Procurement Strategy will ensure we invest public funds to deliver lasting value.
The Government’s multi-billion-dollar investment in goods and services will be directed to benefiting as many Queensland businesses and workers as possible.
… … …
It will support genuine local jobs, by demonstrating a commitment to those businesses that share our commitment to Queenslanders. It will deliver greater transparency in procurement planning across agencies and it will be backed up by a … compliance and coordination unit. It will put Queenslanders first.
This policy says that from 1 September 2017, the government's procurement policy will define a local supplier as a business that maintains a workforce within a 125-kilometre radius of where goods or workers are needed. That's important because we're not just talking Brisbane-based suppliers when it comes to jobs in North Queensland, Far North Queensland or western Queensland; it is genuinely local suppliers who are based in the local area. If you're a local supplier within that definition, the policy says that you'll get a weighting of up to 30 per cent on any tender that you lodge for a significant procurement. So it's still a competitive process and there's still rigorous testing. It just gives them an opportunity to level the playing field with foreign firms.
The policy will also require at least one local or regional supplier and one other Queensland-based business to be invited to quote or tender for every procurement opportunity offered—a very sensible proposal from this government. For significant infrastructure projects of $100 million or more, the procurement process will require the use of local subcontractors and manufacturers where the local capability and capacity exists. In the situation of significant projects, it will require that 15 per cent or more be expended on apprenticeships, which is up from the current 10 per cent. Importantly, this policy will deliver a more visible pipeline of opportunities for Queensland businesses so they can plan to get together the capability and capacity to deliver projects and to have a competitive opportunity to tender for these projects.
There are plenty of other components to this procurement policy, but all we are hearing from this government and its members in this place are complaints—complaints about the fact that Labor is putting Queenslanders first, complaints about the fact that Labor is standing up for local jobs, complaints about the fact that Labor is standing up for Queensland small businesses. Frankly, it is pretty staggering to see federal MPs from the Liberal and National parties come into this place and argue against Queensland's interests and in support of the interests of other jurisdictions. I think they should all go and take a good hard look at themselves, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa) (12:04): Can I congratulate the member for Brisbane for bringing this to parliament's attention, particularly this frightening aspect that the state Labor government has brought upon Queensland. It really shows the populism and simplistic nature of the Labor Party in Queensland in trying to run an economy. Running an economy is a little more complicated than just populism. In fact, I think if One Nation were to have a member in the lower house, they would be here with their Labor friends espousing this type of policy; supporting it. This is tin-foil-hat methodology in terms of running an economy. It is far more complicated than just having this simplistic notion around what trade and local procurement is. I'm all for buying local, but we live in a global world. We live in a global economy, one in which we are all part of and one in which we are all benefiting from.
The fact is that the Labor people on the other side are making this notion that the only way to create jobs is by having a local procurement policy—that's nonsense. International trade creates jobs. The reality is that there are 500,000 people in Queensland directly employed because of the trade agreements that we put in place. We have a trade surplus of $12 billion, and you want to put that at risk? That's nonsense. This is simplistic politics gone mad, and it's dangerous for the Australian people and it's dangerous for the people in my electorate of Maranoa.
In the electorate of Maranoa, we are so reliant on the trade policies and agreements that we have put in place with Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Singapore and China. These are the agreements that are putting real wealth in the pockets of each and every person in Maranoa and that are creating the wealth. The story of Maranoa at the moment is that it has had rain. The trade agreements that we put in place are allowing them to get real money in their pockets every time they settle their commodities.
We are in the grips of drought in the central west of my electorate. Twelve months ago I went and visited a lady who was running a farming operation—cattle. She was keeping her breeding stock alive—about 200 breeding stock. Her husband had been away earning an off-farm income for over two years. She only sees him once or twice a year because he is working 800 kilometres away. As I went around with her, we talked about the future of agriculture. I said to her while we were doing a feed run: 'Do you really see a future in this?' With tears in her eyes she said, 'I sure do. Mate, I don't even know what politics you are, but the only person that is important to me in this country in the political world is the trade minister because I know that when the rain comes, all the work, all that my husband and I have sacrificed, will be worth it, because there is real money in what we have been doing. We are going to see the returns and the benefits of that.' That is a real-life story of someone in the depths of despair that understands the global world that we live in. That is something that I think is real.
But then, if you want to take it to the next level, in my hometown of Warwick we are now seeing an investment by this federal government through a Better Building Regions Fund a $5 million investment that will help build a cold storage facility to export beef around the world. An extra $111 million will be added to our exports because of this investment. But, more importantly—this is the real kicker—there will be 150 new direct jobs and 138 indirect jobs, and 80 jobs during the construction. This myth that the only way that we can create jobs is through a procurement policy is nonsense. This is a real trade agreement that is going to add jobs and 150 new families to my community of Warwick of 12,000 people. That is over a 1 per cent increase in the population. That is real economic growth. That's where the rubber hits the road, and that's because we are producing what the world wants. The world has an insatiable appetite for what we are producing right here now.
The reality is that trade will continue to create those jobs in the communities of Warwick and have flow-on effects. We will need more teachers, we will need nurses and we will need more doctors. It has a flow-on effect. That creates real benefits to people in my electorate of Maranoa. That's how we can participate in the global economy. That's what this is about. This is not taking simplistic, absolutely populous policy, to the nth degree that puts at risk the livelihoods and jobs of people in my electorate. That's just plain dumb. It's something that I would've expected from One Nation—to have the tin foil hat on. To try to create a mechanism that will destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, particularly in my electorate, is something I can never support.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (12:09): I relish the opportunity to enter this debate today to highlight the hypocrisy from the LNP. I've got a lot of time for the member for Maranoa and the member for Brisbane, but they've been caught drinking the IPA Kool Aid on this one. Once upon a time, members from the bush, and all of those regional members, would have stood up for local jobs, but not on this occasion. It's amazing that this government—normally engaged in 'the hunger games' that it can't spend five minutes not ripping itself apart—can now not come up with a policy about procurement for jobs in Australia and can not come up with a policy about buying locally here in Australia. Instead, it is attacking the Queensland government.
The members opposite today have outlined a plan to deal with this state government policy, which is more interested, sadly, in fighting for jobs and small businesses in New Zealand than actually fighting for jobs in Queensland. I say that is a real shame on the side of the LNP. But don't take my word for it—let's look at what the advice on this policy announced by the Palaszczuk government is. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Queensland, when talking about the policy about Buy Queensland, says:
The chamber sees it as levelling the playing field, so that small businesses who employ over 2 million Queenslanders can compete on service and not just undercut on price.
Why is the LNP giving up on jobs in Queensland? Why is the LNP more worried about what's happening in New Zealand than what's actually happening in our own backyard?
I say congratulations to the Palaszczuk Labor government for standing up for Queensland jobs and small businesses. This government has run out of steam and run out of puff. They're more interested in what's happening in New Zealand than—well, we're all interested in what's happening in New Zealand with the Deputy Prime Minister, but we all know today that their priorities are not in favour of Queensland first. The LNP has form on this in Queensland: they've never met a public servant that they haven't wanted to sack, they've never had a frontline service they didn't want to cut or an asset they wanted to sell. Cut, sack, sell! That's what the LNP is on about now—cut, sack, sell.
We know, when it comes to standing up for Queensland, that this LNP—every single member of this parliament—refused to stand up for and back Queensland when the government needed a hand. Regional Queenslanders needed a hand with Cyclone Debbie. They completely walked away from that. They are more interested in spending $122 million on a wasteful survey than $110 million helping North Queenslanders. It was the member for Herbert and Labor senators who fought to get a fair go so those communities can get rebuilt.
Instead, we have this nonsense from the LNP coming into this place, criticising a state government that wants to unapologetically have more jobs and more service delivery in the regions. For regional members to come in here and say, 'We're not worried about what's happening in our local communities. We're worried about what's happening in New Zealand. We're more worried about jobs offshore than jobs onshore.' I say to the people of Queensland: organisations like the chamber of commerce and industry are backing this policy in. You go on record at your peril, because we will be reminding Queenslanders—particularly in regional Queensland—that, when it came to debate and policy analysis, the LNP would not support a Queensland-first campaign.
We know, when it comes to delivery of infrastructure—when it comes to actually putting one's shoulder to the wheel—that the LNP are found wanting. We know that the federal government, as I said, won't pay half the cost of $110 million to help regional communities get back on track. All the mealy-mouthed excuses in the world won't cut it when it comes to delivering jobs on the ground. That's what Queenslanders want. I say to the Queensland state Labor government: 'Keep pushing ahead with this policy.' We want to see jobs on the ground in Queensland. We want the over two million small businesses supported directly through this policy.
We know that, when it comes to delivery on the ground in Queensland, the LNP are all over the place. When it comes to the former Nicholls-Newman government, we saw 24,000 people thrown on the scrap heap. We know that, when it comes to selling assets, the LNP can't be trusted. We know that, when it comes to delivering frontline services, the LNP can't be trusted. Thank heavens the people of Queensland have a Labor government that is restoring confidence, and restoring and delivering jobs here in Queensland.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Deputy Nationals Whip) (12:14): I rise in support of this motion and call on the Palaszczuk government to honour Australia's commitment to free trade. We all wish to see Queensland business grow and prosper, but jeopardising export industries is not the way to go about it. I welcome long-overdue moves to make doing business with the Queensland government easier but draw the line when this risks Central Queensland exports.
By their own admission, the Palaszczuk government spends $14 billion a year buying supplies and services. The value of Queensland exports is around $70 billion, over five times the value of government spend. Sixty per cent of these go to countries where we have a free trade agreement. Queensland is also a net exporter with a $21 million balance of trade. The Palaszczuk government's reckless pursuit of a vote is putting all of this in jeopardy. A 30 per cent 'buy local' weighting will push prices up while making sure Queensland business remains uncompetitive outside government procurement.
If Queensland Labor persists with this ludicrous idea, we can expect the $14 billion spend to increase to $18 billion. Where does the additional $4 billion come from? From the pockets of small business, from the budgets of mums and dads, from our electricity bills and through our car registrations. It was a Labor Prime Minister who stood in front of Australia and said that protectionism was 'contrary to prevailing wisdom'. Premier Palaszczuk, if you won't listen to reason, if you won't listen to the Minister for Trade, if you won't listen to signatories of our free trade agreements, then at least listen to the words of your own former leader. If you persist with unravelling the free trade agreements, you won't just be undoing the work of my colleagues Minister Ciobo and Minister Pitt, you won't just be undoing the work of your former Labor leader; you will be guaranteeing that Queensland businesses, already constrained by electricity price gouging and red tape, will be slammed with a 30 per cent penalty on exports.
Queensland business can grow and compete if you reduce the cost of doing business, not by initiating protectionist policies that belong in the 1950s. Yes, if Annastacia Palaszczuk and Jacqui 'Anti-trade' want to help Queensland business, they should be encouraging more trade, encouraging more investment, reducing the cost of compliance and reducing the cost of electricity so that Queensland businesses have a fighting chance and so they can compete on a global scale. But they want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I can tell you, Paul will only be hit with more hidden taxes to pay for the blunder, while Peter will have to sack all of his workers as exports dry up. They have already antagonised New Zealand, risking $5 billion in Queensland exports and the 20,000 jobs that go with it. When this was promoted as an absolute shot in the arm for small business, I can only assume it was to inject businesses with the same ignorance that the Labor Party is inhaling. The Labor Premier's argument for Queensland job protection is fundamentally flawed. By its very definition, trade is an exchange of goods and commodities; it is not a one-way street. It could jeopardise agreements with Chile, Japan, United States, Korea and New Zealand. It could jeopardise the deal with Singapore.
The Shoalwater Bay military expansion will be a game changer for my electorate of Capricornia. While the Palaszczuk government refuses to budge on water infrastructure, it is probably the only chance we have to diversify the economy. On one hand, the Premier wants federal intervention to protect export markets; while on the other she is doing everything she can to unravel the balance of trade. Either she wants to see exports from Central Queensland grow or she doesn't. Either she wants local businesses like Dobinsons Spring & Suspension to continue exporting to over 50 countries or she doesn't. If the Palaszczuk government had any economic acumen, it would understand the importance of free trade deals for regional economies. It would understand that in my electorate of Capricornia free trade deals underpin economic growth in agriculture, defence industry and tourism. But it doesn't; it doesn't understand economic development and it doesn't understand regional Queensland.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (12:19): While this government says it knows how important jobs are to Australian people, I am confident that this government doesn't actually know why jobs are so important to Australian people. I am confident that it does not know how dire the situation is, particularly in Queensland regional centres, when it comes to jobs. I am confident because the members opposite, if they truly knew how bad things were under their administration, would not be standing idly by and doing nothing. Let's actual utilise the money that has spent the last two years tied up in the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund to deliver infrastructure to Queensland regions—infrastructure that delivers jobs. They wouldn't have been sitting around; they would be using that money. But not one cent has been allocated.
I would strongly argue that the member for Brisbane is not the person to talk to about jobs in Queensland. I find it quite remarkable that he's not here in the chamber now. It's such an important motion for him to move, and he's not here to listen to debate. While we might think that he speaks for all of Queensland, I can tell you that he doesn't. In a state that covers an area of 1.85 million square kilometres, the minuscule inner-city fragment which the member represents is not typical of Queensland. The 58 square kilometres he represents is affluent, fortunate and overrepresented in the workplace. The area he represents is quite literally the CBD of Brisbane. Yet, not that far from his electorate—just an hour away if he jumped in the car or jumped on the Caboolture train line—he could find himself in my seat of Longman and he could see people struggling. They're struggling to find work and they're struggling to get by. Unemployment is incredibly high; underemployment is even higher. Workers are watching as their basic rights are being eroded under this Liberal-National government. Yet, in the inner-city seat, the minister has the gall to condemn a state government that's actually trying to protect its local workers. It's quite remarkable that the member for Brisbane didn't stay around for such an important motion. I would ask the member for Brisbane: is the range of your world view so limited that you can't see past your 58 kilometres? Can you not see that there are people living beyond your comfortable inner-city life?
I call on you to visit us in Longman. I will show you the struggles that people are facing just over the horizon. Or you could do what I did a few weeks ago and make the voyage up north to the member for Herbert's seat. That seat picks up great areas where lots of families live and try to raise their families up in Townsville. It's a seat that the member for Brisbane's government so often turns its back on despite continual pleas for support. I call on the member for Brisbane to do what I did: come and speak to workers, employers and local members. You know what: come and speak to unions. I promise the member for Brisbane that they won't bite. I can promise him that. If he does come to visit, he'll hear things. Just driving around the city, he'll see things. He'll see a city that's been hurt by unpredictable booms and busts, and the ebbs and flows of employment and job scarcity. He'll see the effects that temporary fly-in employers with their temporary fly-in fly-out workforce have had on this city.
Let me ask you, Deputy Speaker Bird: if I were to mention Townsville's local economy, where would you think of? You might think of Pimlico, Annandale, Douglas and maybe Hermit Park. Maybe your scope would reach a little further and you might think of the Hervey Range or Crystal Creek. I doubt you would think of places like Christchurch, Queenstown, Auckland or Dunedin if I asked you to think about Townsville. And yet workers from all over Australia and all over New Zealand are considered local workers. They are given local jobs and they are taking local money out from within the local economy. Furthermore, let's not forget the member for Brisbane's government's foolish endeavour to give Australian jobs to Chinese workers without true labour market testing through the Chinese free trade agreement. It was an agreement that initially lacked provisions to safeguard Australian jobs and that lacked provisions to safeguard Australian workers.
The Queensland government is doing incredible things, like the Back to Work Regional Employment Package, focusing on disadvantaged job seekers and providing an additional $15 million for a 10-year industry plan and road map. I would encourage the member for Brisbane to support the Queensland state government policy that is growing genuine local jobs. I would say to the member for Brisbane: stop wasting time with petty attacks and take some meaningful action that supports Queensland workers.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Renewable Energy
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (12:24): I 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 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 highest 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 implementation and management of their own community specific integrated energy plans and projects.
In moving this motion, I call on the government to recognise the community energy sector and the role it can play in achieving the government's policy trifecta of secure, affordable and reliable energy, and to demonstrate this recognition with a dedicated funding program for community energy projects that support the design, implementation and management of community-specific energy plans and projects.
The community energy sector is in its infancy and faces significant regulatory and cultural barriers. However, its strong growth from two or three groups in 2010 to more than 60 groups today is a clear indication that the sector will play a significant role in the development of future energy policy. Australians, particularly in regional Australia, are saying loudly and clearly, 'We want to invest in renewable energy and we want to invest in our own communities.' This will mean jobs and this will mean that investment stays local and communities have ownership of their own power. Despite political uncertainty, the community energy sector has continued to grow. It's going from strength to strength. But, in order to play a more significant and solution-focused role in the national debate, the sector needs certainty. I am speaking on the sector's behalf today and I am calling on the government to provide the leadership, the policies and the investment to build this capacity for the future. Certainty in policy and program delivery is needed for this sector to continue to play its role in the debate and to be an active contributor to the government's agenda of secure, affordable and reliable energy.
This is not a call for a specific or second set of rules. It is a call to ensure that the rules that currently apply apply to all players and it is a call for sustainability over the electoral cycle. One example is ARENA funding. Currently, it is very difficult for community energy activity to get funding out of ARENA. We are asking ARENA to directly support local community activity. In September, I will be moving legislation that will put greater emphasis on support for community energy projects, particularly in the work of ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. With this legislation, I will call on the government to establish dedicated funding programs for community energy projects that support the design, implementation and management of community-specific programs. For example, in my electorate we have an enormous amount of activity. The local government is leading the way. I would particularly like to acknowledge Indigo, Wodonga and Benalla councils, the Winton Wetlands, Renewable Albury Wodonga, Totally Renewable Yackandandah, the Benalla Sustainable Future Group, the Up2Us Landcare group in Mansfield, the Wangaratta Sustainability Network, the Murrindindi Climate Network, North East Water, and Wodonga Albury Toward Climate Health. They are a few of the groups actively working in this area. I would also like to acknowledge some of my constituents here today. Welcome. It's lovely to have you here. I know that you too are committed to renewable energy and are doing your bit to make it happen.
Today is about calling on the government to do their bit. As we do this bit, we're creating jobs, we're creating opportunities for people to come and live in the country and we're really growing our economy, but, most importantly, we are supporting our communities to be self-reliant and self-sufficient in their own energy use. The decisions made here in Canberra directly impact on regional communities and how we build resilience and how we create more vibrant and sustainable communities. The government have told us that they care about regional Australia. You've heard it regularly. Today I'm asking them to put their money and their leadership where their mouth is—to actually come out to the floor, support communities, support the wonderful initiatives that are taking place right across the country and make decisions that say: 'Not only do we care about renewable energy; we care about communities, we care about resilience and we see how communities can take their place when we're trying to resolve the problems that we, the government, are looking at when we talk about energy policy.' In our community we have seen what happens when government work closely with community. Particularly with this motion, I am asking that the government make a commitment to energy policy that is secure, affordable and reliable, and that the community energy sector has a central role in delivering that result.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. Is the motion seconded?
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:29): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:29): I cannot support this motion which I have no doubt is sincerely put by the member for Indi and reflects her belief in the need for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and for community engagement in the process. I have no doubt about that, and it is, of course, admirable. The climate is almost certainly changing, and we should do what we reasonably can to reduce emissions; however, the level of emphasis that has been placed on renewables in Australia and in other largely Western countries has been shown to be significantly and at times dangerously misplaced. Despite relentless campaigning to the contrary, often by the left media, renewables are no panacea, with the result of headlong rushes towards renewables typically delivering minimal environmental outcomes for sometimes catastrophic economic pain.
Not long ago, Australia had some of the cheapest power on the planet. We had that ranking because of our rich reserves of fossil fuels and because of the massive subsidisation of renewables in Europe, which had pushed their prices up and added considerably to a widening price gap in our favour. Now, after just a few years of a mad rush to mimic the European experiment with subsidised but unreliable renewables, we have caught up with Denmark, Germany and Spain and now we have some of the most expensive power in the world.
As the Prime Minister made clear to the member for Indi recently in question time when she made the same call as she makes in this motion for yet another form of subsidy for renewables, the big problem for this form of energy production is storage. Renewables are currently only intermittent sources of energy. They simply can't be relied upon. Windfarms generate around 30 per cent of the time, with no guarantee that the power they produce will be useful at the time when they are generated and, because it can't be effectively stored, it's often wasted. Solar generation is even less reliable and has the same storage problem. The situation for large hydro projects like Snowy 2.0 is certainly far better but viable locations are elusive. This means that renewables have to be backed by conventional fossil fuel-based generators if the lights are to stay on.
Another major, even pivotal, reason that Australia and, indeed, many of the countries that have invested heavily in renewables now face an energy crisis is the irrational, almost fanatical, thinking around renewables. The ideologues—and I'm not putting the member for Indi in this bucket—who seek emissions reductions at any cost have effectively, by their policies, created massive distortions in generating profiles. These distortions deepen the pre-existing intermittency problems of renewables, effectively magnifying a peripheral issue into a major systemic failure—a failure that directly threatens Australia's energy reliability and affordability and, with it, the future of our economy and standard of living.
Of further concern to me is that private sector investors aren't likely to build a coal-fired power station in Australia while the mad clamour for renewables continues, for they risk being left with a stranded asset long before banking a commensurate return on their investment. Gas, of course, is one potential answer. It is less emissions intensive than coal but, as the Prime Minister made clear in his response in question time to the member for Indi, it is now prohibitively expensive, thanks to decisions by former Labor governments that ensured world parity prices and a diminished domestic supply.
Australia does need a reliable, affordable and, as the member for Indi indicated, sustainable system of generating and distributing power to businesses and homes. That objective will not be achieved by further widening the subsidisation of renewables, at least not as technology now stands—not by a long shot. Secure affordable and reliable power can only come from a well-managed effective mix of baseload, intermediate and peak power generations, which, for the foreseeable future, if we continue to ignore the nuclear option, are going to be, substantially, fossil fuel— (Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:34): I was out meeting with some rather large manufacturers in Western Sydney recently, and we were talking about rising power prices and how many of them had gone to cogeneration some time ago; they had just moved away from the grid system altogether and gone independent. One of them said to me that they believed that the energy system was having a Kodak moment—that the way we did it and the way it could be done are now so different and the price differences so great that we're looking at a Kodak moment. They didn't mean a photo op; they meant a time of dramatic change.
We need a far more sophisticated debate about this than we're currently having, because we need a reliable grid and we need a guaranteed supply. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the tidal wave of new technologies and new options that are coming our way from across the world is foolish and risks the very grid that you're trying to protect. The world is in transition. We can follow—and we will, because the world will go that way—or we can let our businesses lead and become the owners of the technology and the patents that the world will use to make that transition. We need to do that and we need to do that now. Every month and every day we delay leaves us further behind.
The grid is looking at a perfect storm. It's ridiculously expensive now to connect to the grid. The wholesale price has doubled since this government was elected, and retail cost per unit is going up. That alone will bring other businesses into the field, because of supply and demand. At the same time, the cost of alternatives is going down, and that creates a perfect storm. The fix that we've seen so many retailers introduce, which is to increase the fixed element of the bill so that going solar on your home or your business provides less advantage, is a short-term fix. Ultimately, as the price of alternatives drops further, that will drive people off the grid. It won't protect the grid; it will drive people off it—and that is not good. It will mean, over time, that people who can afford to will go off the grid and those who can't will be left bearing the costs for the entire grid.
It is not a long-term solution, yet we can already see big developers deciding that their latest high-rise isn't going to connect to the grid, even in Western Sydney. Meriton is talking about taking whole high-rises off the grid. People in regional areas, where the cost of connection is very high, are going off the grid. Our own Prime Minister has battery storage and solar in his home. Manufacturers are openly talking about doing something else, forming their own power companies and literally walking away from the current system that we have.
Start-ups, including one accelerator in Sydney and quite a few companies in my electorate, are already trying to use technology to find ways around the way we currently do things. Random Hacks of Kindness at the University of Western Sydney has been working on BittWatt, which is a peer-to-peer power platform that will allow consumers in the suburbs to literally trade with each other. It's on its way. It is incredibly exciting. But it's also hugely problematic, because we need the grid and we need sustainable power. So we need a government that will enter into serious discussions about how we move from where we are now to where the world is going and how that disruption—and there will be disruption—will take place without disrupting the guarantee of supply. We need an incredibly sophisticated discussion.
There's another driver in all of this—that is, people want to move. The member for Indi's motion refers to the 67 per cent of people who think that we're moving to renewable energy too slowly and the 73 per cent who support setting a target. People want to go there. The price is coming down; the possibilities and the technologies are moving in. I want to mention two organisations in my electorate that are driving this change. ParraCAN, which has been around since 2007, has already got groups of customers together to get bulk deals on solar panels. There's no doubt they'll do the same with batteries. They've been meeting regularly and working to grow the renewable sector in Parramatta since 2007. They've now formed the Greater Western Sydney Energy Alliance, which works with business and consumers together to drive growth of renewables in Western Sydney. I would particularly like to congratulate Richard and Maria Maguire, who have worked so hard to put this process together. They meet regularly. They've got a major meeting coming up shortly. People like that and people right across our communities are driving this change. The government can go with it, or they can ignore it—but they ignore it at all of our peril.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:39): I find myself in partial agreement with the member for Parramatta: we need to have a more sophisticated debate when it comes to renewable energy. We should start by being truthful about the actual cost to the Australian community of this transition. If renewable energy were this wonderful thing that was so much cheaper, we would not need any subsidies, we would not need the government coming in and having forced mandates and requiring compulsory things like the renewable energy target.
If we're going to have a sophisticated debate, let's start with how much the cost of subsidising renewable energy is adding to people's electricity bills at the moment. If we add up the cost of the feed-in tariffs for solar from the states and the cost of the large-scale renewable energy target, we come to a sum of $3 billion. That gets added directly to consumers' electricity bills to subsidise renewables. But that's only part of the additional cost; there are all the hidden subsidies that we don't see. There is the added cost to the network of hooking wind farms into the grid. This adds to the network costs and gets loaded into our electricity bills. This completely distorts the market and forces up the wholesale price, adding to consumers' bills.
If we're going to have a really sophisticated debate, we need to say what this cost is to our economy. What is the cost when we push the price of electricity higher and higher to subsidise renewables? How many jobs are being lost across the economy when businesses cannot afford to continue in Australia? What is the cost of our lack of competitiveness? What is the cost, when we have seen that South Australia now has the prize of the highest electricity prices in the world?
An opposition member: That's untrue. It's untrue.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: How can South Australia manufacture anything competitively if they have the highest electricity prices in the world?
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr CRAIG KELLY: We hear the members over there. They don't like to mention this fact. Do you know why, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is because their policy is to copy South Australia. You couldn't make this madness up. In South Australia we have seen the economic devastation that has been caused by pursuing these absurd renewable energy targets, and that is exactly what the Labor Party want to copy.
The other thing that we need to think about is the health effects on people who cannot afford their electricity bills. I know this is a controversial subject, but if we're going to have a sophisticated debate let's tell the truth about what's happening. We have excess winter mortality in this country. On an average winter day, you are 20 per cent more likely to die than you are on a summer day. It is cold weather that kills. Of that 20 per cent—those excess winter deaths—the World Health Organization estimates that 30 per cent are the result of people having inadequately heated homes. Because of the cost of subsidising renewables, we have seen more and more Australians having their electricity cut off.
An opposition member: No.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: People in your electorate or in the member for Indi's electorate are having their electricity cut off. We have seen a doubling of the number of households having their electricity cut off over recent years simply because electricity prices have gone higher, and a substantial cause of that is this absurd nonsense of subsidising renewables when it's completely and utterly unnecessary. We hear about all these wonderful new technologies coming on stream, and that is fantastic, but why do we need to subsidise them? Why do we need to make it harder for the age pensioner or the hardworking family or the single mum to pay higher electricity prices just so they can subsidise renewables.
If we are going to have an honest or sophisticated debate, as the member for Parramatta talks about, we must start with the cost to our society. I respect the member for Indi; I understand she brings this motion to the House in good faith. But to bring it in here and talk about more subsidisation is completely and utterly the wrong direction to go in. Energy is the ultimate resource. It is what creates wealth. It is what transforms one substance to another. It affects households. It affects jobs. If we're going to have this debate, at least let's be honest about what the true cost of renewable energy is and the harm that it's doing to our business and our society.
Dr MIKE KELLY (Eden-Monaro) (12:44): I'm very pleased to speak in support of the motion by my valued neighbour in the electorate of Indi. We share rural and regional interests, and one of the things I would recommend that the member do is actually read the Farmer Climate Survey, which indicated that 90 per cent of farmers are concerned about climate change, and for good reason. They're the ones who are going to bear the cost of inaction and the results of the devastation of climate change. In that survey, 88 per cent of those farmers wanted their representatives to do more on this issue, and 80 per cent wanted to move to 100 per cent renewable energy. Of course, we've seen the NSW Young Nationals urge the government to take on board a mechanism to generate the investment needed in this area, and the National Farmers' Federation has also called on the government to move forward on this.
I would urge the member, in the context of what he had to say, to read his own Finkel report. I have read all 212 pages of that report, and it really bells the cat on what the government's had to say on this issue. One quote where it highlights the key deficiency, from four years of drift and a lack of policy, is at page 88. It says:
… a mechanism is required to guide investment in the electricity sector that is compatible with Australia’s international emissions reduction commitments. The existing policies aimed at reducing emissions in the electricity sector are not consistent with Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction goals.
It also says:
The lack of a clear means by which the electricity sector is expected to contribute to this task is hampering investment in the NEM—
the National Electricity market. It went on to say:
The Panel emphasises the urgency of the need for a credible and enduring emissions reduction policy for the electricity sector to provide investor confidence
They couldn't be clearer about what the problem here is. We have seen an 88 per cent drop-off in investment under this government, and that is the issue—generation capacity that could have been there that isn't, because of this government.
Now, we heard talk about prices. The Finkel report said, at page 90, that prices would be higher under a business as usual scenario and, in coal-fired NSW, we have seen a doubling of the price and now another 20 per cent increase since July. The Finkel report said:
The modelling undertaken for this Review found that the CET and EIS policy scenarios both resulted in lower residential and industrial electricity prices than leaving policy settings unchanged under a business as usual (BAU) scenario.
So, they have really belled the cat on that one. They also said:
… consultation with stakeholders suggests that, currently, the uncertainty around emissions reduction policy is having an impact on investment decisions and financing costs for generators.
And that point was hammered home to the Prime Minister in the recent discussions he had with the electricity market companies.
We have heard comments about health—bizarre comments about renewable energy causing deaths of patrons. Look, if they were that concerned about the impact of electricity prices, then why are they trying to get rid of the electricity energy supplement? Around 400,000 pensioners and 138,000 single parents will be affected by that decision. If they are worried about that, they should address that issue. If they are worried about health issues, I have seen plenty of health surveys, some of which have suggested that fossil fuels cause about $6 billion worth of cost to our health bill in this nation and probably kill around 3,000 Australians a year. That is what some of those reports have suggested. So if we are worried about health, then we need to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible.
The biggest single issue that is highlighted in the Finkel report—and there are so many things I could go through, like the opportunities for rural communities, moving to distributed energy resources and the opportunities for saving on power bills—is the urgent need to make a decision on the clean energy target. It set out a time line for implementation of its recommendations, and included, at zero months, an urgent decision on the clean energy target. But what are we seeing from this government? More drift and more inaction. It is what I chose the year are This is what's holding back our ability to create the economic engine that will drive this country forward, particularly, in investment in rural and regional areas. In my own electorate of Eden-Monaro, we saw over a billion dollars come into our region during the previous government's policies. That all dried up. What we need is a decision on the CET now. We need community power networks, we need investment in rural and regional areas, and we need this government to get off its backside and get something done.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (12:50): I'm very pleased to speak on the motion today. I think that renewables are all but certain to become the major supplier of electricity in Australia over the next two or three decades. It's just a matter of when and at what cost. It was interesting—I actually referred to the motion from the member where it quotes the Australia Institute's survey that said that 67 per cent of Australia is moving to renewable energy too slowly and that 73 per cent report the new renewable energy target for 2030.
I have spent a considerable amount of my time studying energy in Australia, particularly in South Australia, over the past five years or so. It is one of the most complex subjects you could possibly hope to cover. And I'm always wary of surveys like that because, of course, the people that are asked to make an answer are not in possession of many of those facts. Just how we transition, I think, is the big question for Australia.
South Australia is the perfect example of how we—and I say 'we' in a collective manner, being the state of South Australia—got it wrong. The consequences of getting it wrong are costing us jobs and investment on a daily basis. I've seen that effect in my electorate. Businesses that were planning to invest have delisted that investment, and others, in fact, have closed up and gone.
The South Australian government vigorously pursued the renewable energy target, which was originally set at 20 per cent by 2020. It became obvious that because of the mechanism used to set the target was a fixed number—which was no more than an estimate on the day—we were actually heading for around 28 per cent of our electricity market being renewable. After a long negotiation, the parliament finally, eventually, settled on a figure of around 23. The perfect example of how we got it wrong in South Australia was the 'when'. We—and I say 'we' being the state government—vigorously pursued the renewable energy target. As a result, we got close to 50 per cent of our energy now coming from renewable sources. On the face of it, that's a good thing. But what it did—because we got there prematurely and because the South Australian government chose to allow the Alinta Northern Power Station to shut 15 years early—was drive the economic case for baseload generation to the point of closure. That meant a virtual doubling of South Australia's wholesale electricity prices overnight. This has wreaked havoc through the state, it must be said.
Both levels of government—the federal and state levels—are desperately trying to do something about this in the remedial sense at the moment. The state is doing so, of course, with a very expensive battery. Once again, the devil lies in the detail. The possession of knowledge is very powerful. The Elon Musk battery will provide electricity for South Australia on a hot day for about 2.5 minutes at a cost of between $50 million and $100 million. If you were to extrapolate that across the electricity system, you would see that, at this stage, is not an economical way to provide backup. It may well come into its own in the near future—let's hope it does. But, at this stage, it is too expensive to entertain on a broad scale.
I have for some time been saying that South Australia should not authorise any new renewable intermittent power sources unless they have storage. The storage is the most important factor for South Australia now. That is for South Australia because we are so far in advance of the rest of Australia in this matter.
The federal government, for its effort, is investing in a pumped-hydro project in my electorate on the Cultana defence range at Port Augusta. We are doing a feasibility study on a pumped-hydro project with EnergyAustralia. I anticipate that this will come about. There are another two companies in the area, without government assistance, looking at the same thing—if you like, retrofitting storage to the system that has an over-preponderance of wind at this stage because it's become uneconomical. To the member that proposed this motion: we're also investing $110 million—through ARENA, interestingly—to build a solar thermal-concentrated power station with storage. And that is the most important thing: with storage. (Time expired)
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (12:55): I'm pleased to make a contribution to the member for Indi's excellent motion. I want to pick up a few of the myths peddled by the other side in this debate. To the member for Grey's contribution, every single wind farm built in South Australia was driven by a federal bipartisan policy of the renewable energy target. The federal government's policy—a bipartisan target—delivered almost 50 per cent renewable energy to South Australia in that period. I absolutely agree that more planning is needed, and that was at the heart of the Finkel review. But it would be a complete misnomer and a great disservice to the Australian public to blame the South Australian government for the actions of a federal policy mechanism supported by both sides of politics.
I'm also interested in the member for Grey applauding the investment in pumped hydro by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, an agency this government has tried to abolish twice. It demonstrates the grave hypocrisy of the Liberal-National government. As for the ridiculous contribution from the member for Hughes, who is a serial offender in this context, the government's own stacked inquiry in 2014—the Warburton review, stacked with climate change deniers—found that the renewable energy target actually reduces prices. Let me repeat that: the pressure the renewable energy target exerts to suppress the wholesale energy price is much greater than the cost of the renewable energy certificates. The 23½ per cent RET reduces electricity prices, nothing else.
We are facing an investment strike in this country because of four years of policy paralysis by this government, a government riven by divisions, denial of climate change and denial of basic economic competency. That means the wholesale energy prices across the whole nation have doubled, and there is one way through it: a bipartisan commitment to a clean energy target that will reduce electricity prices by $175 per annum, compared to the business-as-usual case. When those on the other side talk about reducing electricity prices, if they're fair dinkum about it, they need to support a clean energy target and let industry get on with doing what they need to do—invest in new generation—because our power fleet is very old.
Returning to the substance of this excellent motion, it's all about empowering local communities to be masters of their own destiny with regard to energy generation and to make a contribution to fighting climate change, on the one hand, but also to have a level of independence and—quite frankly—to have some security against increasing electricity prices. Whenever I travel around the country as the shadow assistant minister for climate change and energy, I see communities passionate about embracing community renewable energy, something tried and proven overseas. Whether it's in California or Germany, countries and communities are embracing a community ownership of renewable energy—a community-led investment boom.
That's why I was so proud that, at the last election, Labor took a very strong policy to the people on community ownership. We allocated $98 million to a community power network that included funding for 10 community power hubs. We also put aside grants funding for projects such as solar gardens for renters; low-income energy efficiency investment; solar programs using innovative finance like council rates; community wind farms; piloting community solar projects with social housing providers; and rates financing of renewable energy for low-income pensioners. These were all concrete projects that would empower local communities—whether it's the member for Indi's community in regional Victoria, mine in regional New South Wales or the member for Lindsay's in Western Sydney—to invest in renewable energy, to make a contribution to fighting climate change and to make a contribution to reducing electricity prices for local communities, which is so important. That's why this motion is so important. That's why Labor is standing shoulder to shoulder in embracing community renewable energy.
If those on the other side use this as an excuse to attack renewable energy, they'll be doing a great disservice, because the facts are these. The renewable energy target reduces electricity prices, and the best way to reduce future prices is by embracing a clean energy target to stop the investment strike in the wholesale energy market. If those on the other side are serious about reducing electricity prices, they need to endorse a clean energy target right now.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time alloted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
North Korea
Consideration resumed of the motion:
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.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (13:00): Australia stands with the United States of America and Australia stands against the government of Democratic People's Republic of Korea. An editorial in the Global Times, published by the Chinese Communist Party's official People's Daily, ran last week saying, 'China should make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral. If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.' While these words from a Chinese state-run newspaper have been analysed by many a Western commentator over recent days, few have sought to glean the message China may be sending North Korea, instead focusing on China's likely message for the United States. The Chinese are strategic and the Chinese are smart. If, indeed, this editorial was in fact a message from Xi Jinping's Communist China, what it signals to Kim Jong-un's North Korea is far more enlightening than that which it might be signalling to the United States and her allies.
Chairman Mao Zedong, the founding father of the People's Republic of China, is renowned for having written in March 1926 the words—
Mr O'Brien then spoke in Mandarin —
Womende diren shi shei? Womende pengyou she shei?
'Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?' Mao saw these as first-order questions for the revolution, arguing that previous revolutionary struggles in China had achieved little, due to a failure of revolutionaries to unite with real friends, to attack real enemies.
It is not for me to advise China on who their real friends or enemies are. What is crystal clear as we look at the crisis unfolding on the Korean Peninsula is that North Korea is acting like anything but a friend with respect to China. China knows it was North Korea that was the aggressor that instigated the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, which saw the shedding of so much Chinese blood. China knows that since the armistice in 1953, the North Korean regime has indulged in extreme brinkmanship with the international community, including breaching resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, of which China is a permanent member. China also knows that North Korea has breached the terms of the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Corporation Friendship Treaty of 1961. Article 2 of that treaty declares that the two nations guaranteed to adopt immediately all necessary measures to oppose any country or coalition of countries that might attack either nation. The treaty says that both nations, and this is vitally important, should safeguard peace and security. Aggression and provocations by North Korea, especially when it involves the threat of use of nuclear weapons, is deeply inconsistent with this duty.
For those who may be unfamiliar with north-east Asia, do not assume that China and North Korea share that much in common. North Korea, after all, is a country that markets itself as a proud nation amidst an ongoing socialist revolution. In truth, it is a closed, failed state under totalitarian rule—under the perverse, so-called juche ideology that, in practice, oppresses its own people while threatening those abroad. It is a state that consistently defies China and the international community's request to cease development of nuclear weapons—rather, accelerating their development—while unashamedly threatening the sovereignty of other peace-loving nations that are abiding by an international rules based order.
When it comes to dealing with North Korea and ensuring the peace and stability of our region, I say to China: the United States and her allies, including Australia, are your real friends, and we need to work together to bring North Korea to its senses through economic and diplomatic means.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:05): More than anything else, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea reminds us of who we are by what they are not. Led by Kim Jong-un, North Korea stands as an alternative universe of what happens when you don't have democracy, you don't have individual freedoms, you don't care about morality and you don't have any of the principles that we have based our society upon. North Korea's abuse of its own citizens and its active destabilisation of the world order serve as a reminder that all of us are tied together on this same planet. More and more of the challenges we face can only be resolved through international cooperation and agreement.
Undisputedly, one of the worst places to be born, the North Korean regime's crimes against its own citizens have been flagrant, systematic and widespread. Any critique of the regime is swiftly and harshly punished. Executions are often public, detentions are arbitrary and horrible punishments are regularly intergenerational. Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby was appointed to the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, where he found that human rights violations in North Korea went so far as to constitute crimes against humanity, equating them to some of those committed by the Nazis in Germany.
The gravity, scale and nature of these violations revealed a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world. The UN Human Rights Council estimated that 80,000-120,000 prisoners are incarcerated due to political crimes. They are subjected to forced labour, physical abuse and execution. In this day and age, these atrocities are being perpetuated by a dictator on his own people, his own countrymen. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement, a free press—all sometimes taken for granted in our own country—are all unimaginable for the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. What an ironic name, indeed. The thing about civilisation is that, first, you need to be civilised. When you remove civility, what do you have left? What is left to such a regime but bullying, threats and brutality?
In North Korea, endless energy is dedicated to rallying against the perceived threat of the Western world, when endless resources should be dedicated to taking care of its own people. What threat is the West to the North Koreans, if they were to stop threatening nuclear annihilation and take care of their own? As it stands, Kim Jong-un continues to test his missiles, increase his nuclear strength and throw rhetorical tantrums during which he threatens our nations so he can protect his people against the supposed, imagined threat we pose. Like the bully that he is, he blames the suffering of his people on others and threatens with violence those who would see his people prosper.
I ask myself what lessons we must draw from this escalating conflict. The truth is that we have provided the North Korean regime with rice and wheat and had hoped that their own economic self-interest and survival would make them see reason, while they have continued arming themselves, silencing their opponents and starving their population.
Finally, and I applaud the government's role in doing so, the world community has sharpened its rhetoric and acted on its words. UN resolutions are imposing strict sanctions and embargoes that show how serious we are about the stability of our world. It is time for China to act. I lend my voice to those of my colleagues and the government in arguing that the Chinese government, close neighbours to North Korea, play its role on the world stage and do more to resolve the current conflict peacefully.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:10): The recent actions of the North Korean government in pursuing illegal and provocative nuclear and ballistic missile programs and in making very serious threats towards the United States and her allies should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Their actions are highly dangerous, totally unjustified and deeply irresponsible. At a time when the people of North Korea are suffering wholesale, indiscriminate deprivation, brought about by their own regime—a regime that would rather funnel scarce funds into weapons of mass destruction rather than feed their own starving people—this dictatorship has shown itself to be entirely unfit to govern its own society responsibly. The prospect of such a government acquiring the power of nuclear weapons and the ability to project that power to other parts of the globe is deeply troubling. It is unacceptable to the international community and to anyone who cares about the safety of our own people. We must do everything we can to stop it, and the government should be commended for the strong action it has already taken.
It's sometimes is easy to believe that large-scale and bloody conflicts are a thing of the past and that the world is too interconnected and too economically advanced for any significant war to take place. History, however, teaches us otherwise. It's hard to imagine a time that, on first glance, seemed less conducive to a major war between global powers than 1950. The world had only five years prior gone through the largest and most bloody conflict—the second such conflict in living memory. Tens of millions of people lay dead and societies across the globe had been destroyed. The consequences of war were clear to all, and hardly anyone in the world had not felt at least some of its effects.
Five years on from that conflict, people and communities were beginning the slow road to recovery, learning once again how to live in peace. So how can anyone have wanted another major war? How can anyone have truly expected what North Korea's aggression would bring about? Yet there was a war on the Korean Peninsula which commenced in 1950—a three-year conflict between global powers in which probably more than a million people died and in which Australia was heavily involved. The Korean War between 1950 and 1953 teaches us that instability on the Korean Peninsula can have the most serious consequences. It teaches us that, though it might seem like an outcome that no-one wants, though it might seem in no-one's interests and though it might seem like it could not happen, we can never discount the possibility of war when faced with an aggressive and unstable regime.
That experience teaches us something else: that any conflict on the Korean Peninsula is likely to be protracted, difficult and extremely bloody. Though times have changed since the 1950s, the significant size of the North Korean military, its aggression and its difficult terrain have not. Though there is no doubt whatsoever that the brave and well-equipped men and women of the Australian Defence Force, as part of a coalition task force, would prevail, there is also no doubt that restoring peace and stability in the region would come at a heavy price in lives taken and families devastated.
Seventeen thousand Australians served in the Korean War, 350 were killed, 1,216 were wounded and a further 29 were prisoners of war, so history, with reason and compassion, tells us that we must do what we can to pursue a peaceful settlement to this dispute. We must explore every diplomatic avenue to make the North Korean government understand that its own interests and the interests of its desperate people depend on the closure of its nuclear and ballistic missile program. The only thing worse than a conflict with North Korea now would be a conflict with a North Korea that possessed weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them to our shores. Any military option must be the absolute last resort to prevent that happening. We should seek a peaceful settlement of this dispute, but, if that settlement should not prove possible, we must act to defend our sovereignty and that of our allies.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13:16 to 16:00
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Indi Electorate: Philanthropy
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:00): Colleagues, I'd like to take this opportunity today to talk about the important role of philanthropy, particularly in rural communities, and to welcome to parliament this week some outstanding examples of philanthropy, particularly the Tomorrow Today Foundation. Sally Gamble and Liz Chapman are representing the board of the Tomorrow Today Foundation: Adrian Aldous, Bill Dobson, Patrick Duffy, Louise Pearce and Nick Taylor. Based in Benalla, they do fantastic work, using local money to do local good. Their particular focus is on education, and their work with kids from preschool right through is making a huge difference to my community in Benalla, so I want to thank you.
Notwithstanding the work of the Tomorrow Today Foundation, there are a number of other philanthropic trusts in Indi, and we had a meeting over the break. I thanked Katrina and Loretta from the Into Our Hands Community Foundation, Robyn from the Marysville Triangle Community Foundation, Glenys from the Border Trust Community Foundation, Marty from the Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal, and Michael and Sarah from the Corryong Neighbourhood House for coming together. The meeting, which was facilitated with great wisdom by Alana Johnson, looked at how we, as a whole electorate, can actually develop philanthropy, working not only in our communities but as a whole. There's work to be done here on taxation benefits and breaks, and there are a whole lot of other things that the government can do to help local giving. So I welcome the Tomorrow Today Foundation. I look forward to supporting you and doing what we can with government to make it easier for you.
Fisher Electorate: Sunshine Coast Business Women's Network Awards
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:01): On Saturday night, I attended the Sunshine Coast Business Women's Network awards at the Caloundra Events Centre. It was a fantastic night. The recipients of the various awards were: young businesswoman of the year, Angela Mansey from Kuluin Mufflers; corporate businesswoman of the year, Jodie Hedley-Ward from McGrath Caloundra; micro small businesswoman of the year, Dr Tegan Keogh from Hear Check; professional businesswoman of the year, Mervat Quirke from Bloomhill Cancer Care; and sustainable businesswoman of the year, Anne Gibson from The Micro Gardener. The overall outstanding businesswoman of the year was Elaine Jobson from Jetts Fitness.
These women and all of the finalists really showcased their skills and abilities, and I was so proud to be a Sunshine Coaster and to see such great talent from all of these women who are leading the way in business in our community. But I want to point out two women: Kim Morrison—a very good friend of mine—from Twenty.8, who unfortunately didn't get a gong on the night but was a finalist, and Angela Mansey, to whom I'd particularly like to pay a great tribute. There wasn't a dry eye in the house when she told her story about where she had come from and caring for her young son, who has VACTERL association. It was a great story, and more power to you, Angela.
Battle of Long Tan: 51st Anniversary
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen) (16:03): I rise today to honour the service of the brave Anzacs in the Battle of Long Tan. This Friday marks the 51st anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, a battle which is a symbol of Australian triumph and valour despite insurmountable odds. The Vietnam War was the longest major conflict in which Australians had served, but one battle in particular has remained firmly in our nation's consciousness. In each theatre of war there's always a battle that seems to stand out as a signal of Australian strength and the Anzac spirit, whether it be Gallipoli or Tobruk. In Vietnam, it was Long Tan. When we think about it, Australians were outnumbered 20 to one by the Vietcong, yet they fought for four hours in the rain during a monsoonal storm. It was four hours that redefined the nation and redefined how the battle for Vietnam was going. It is a mark of who we are, and it encapsulates grit and determination.
Sadly, we lost 18 Australian diggers in that battle, but the enemy suffered casualties far, far worse. Sadly, over many decades we have seen the issues faced by those who returned, and it's only in more modern times that we've accepted that what they did was right and that what they did was very brave. So I encourage all members to go to services this Friday and support our Vietnam vets. If you get a chance, come and see where I'll be, at the only Vietnam veteran's commemorative wall in this nation.
Robertson Electorate: Stronger Communities Program
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (16:04): The government's Stronger Communities Program is now returning for a third round in my electorate on the Central Coast. In this year's budget, the government has committed $22½ million for the third round, with funding of up to $150,000 available for community organisations across the electorate of Robertson. Already we've received dozens of expressions of interest. I really encourage any local community groups who are interested to also consider nominating their projects.
In the first two rounds, we've been able to assist groups across the Central Coast with a great range of community projects. The Umina Community Group was able to help fund the construction of Runway Park at Umina—an outstanding tribute to our region's wartime history. Musicians Making a Difference, in Gosford, have just completed a brand new recording studio. It was a pleasure to attend the launch of this new venue recently for an outstanding organisation that does great work with young people right across the Central Coast and around Australia. BlueWave Living at Woy Woy was able to purchase and install an emergency generator, the Pearl Beach Progress Association secured a defibrillator for the beach, and the Central Coasts Sports Federation, along with the Central Coast Council, will be launching the Central Coast Walk of Fame in Gosford. It's great to see projects like this come to life as a result of this program. I certainly encourage applicants who would be interested to consider registering their interest for this project by 4 September. Applicants can seek grants of between $2,500 and $20,000, and we'll match the grant on a dollar-for-dollar basis. (Time expired)
Moreton Electorate: National Liberation Day of Korea
Mr PERRETT (Moreton—Opposition Whip) (16:06): The anniversary of the Victory over Japan Day for Koreans is on 15 August and it is now celebrated as the National Liberation Day of Korea. On the weekend, I was delighted to attend the Korean Cultural Festival in the city of Brisbane. I thank the Korean Society of Queensland and all the many volunteers for organising the event again this year. I particularly thank Gwang Hoon Hyun, the President of the Korean Society of Queensland, and Sang Soo Yoon, from the Consulate-General of the Republic of Korea, who came from Sydney. It was a wonderful day and a fabulous event, as it always is. It is a feast for the cultural senses in so many ways. Obviously, I'm a little bit biased because my electorate office is pretty much in the middle of downtown Seoul, so I'm used to having Korean food for lunch regularly, but there are also wonderful music performances, including Samulnori, a Korean traditional performance, and obviously taekwondo. The day is celebrated in both North Korea and South Korea because that was when the Japanese colonisers were defeated. It's important that all Koreans celebrate this day. It also reflects the fact that the Korean population in Australia is increasing significantly. In the 2011 census, there were 8,000 people with Korean ancestry and in the 2016 census there were 123,000, with a significance increase in my electorate.
O'Connor Electorate: Esperance Ocean Safety and Support Group
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (16:08): I rise today to give a shout-out to some proactive community members in Esperance who aim to prevent further shark attacks along the Southern Ocean coastline of my electorate of O'Connor. Since my election in 2013, there have been four shark attacks. Albany teenager Jay Muscat was killed at Cheynes Beach in December 2014; abalone driver Greg Pickering and surfer Sean Pollard were seriously injured in attacks along the Esperance coastline. Most recently, Mandurah teenager Laeticia Brouwer was killed while surfing at Kelp Beds at Esperance last Easter. I know that the member for Canning has spoken with her family and comforted the family in their loss.
Today, I commend local schoolteacher and surfer Mitch Capelli who has formed the Esperance Ocean Safety and Support Group. A few weeks ago, Mitch and I co-hosted a forum considering the policy issues of shark control and mitigation strategies. Our panel of local experts including veterinarian, scuba diver and international yachtsman, Dr David Swan; international film maker, David Riggs; local abalone driver and contract researcher Marc Payne; and president of the Esperance Professional Fishermen's Association, Neville Mansted. Together with a very engaged audience, the group made a firm commitment to enhancing local safety measures, such as aerial drone patrols, signage, warning systems on Esperance beaches and social media alerts. Meanwhile, I'll work with the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Josh Frydenberg, to verify anecdotal evidence of increasing numbers of white sharks in WA. I'll urge a review of the EPBC Act protection status if the numbers are, in fact, escalating. In the interim, the minister has given the WA government the authority to enact immediate control measures to mitigate any further injuries or fatalities. (Time expired)
Marriage
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:09): I haven't met either of my friend Ben's mums, but this week I've been thinking about them a lot as I've heard that not having their relationship recognised at in law as a marriage has had awful practical and emotional consequences in dealing with doctors and with systems that see marriage as it is presently constructed at law as something that excludes them. This unthinking callousness that they have been experiencing is diminishing us all. So I've thought about how casually those of us with privileges too often enjoy them and how little consideration we give when we get to call our partner 'wife' or 'husband' and get to have this recognised for the meaning that we together have chosen to give it.
What sort of person would choose to deny another this or fail to consider what it means for their families and compound this by causing an opinion poll in place of simply righting a self-evident wrong? I am filled with dread about this survey borne of weakness and cynicism, which trades human rights for political convenience and is heedless of its effects on so many of us. For these wonderful women, who have spent so many years together, and their family, and for every LGBTI Australian and everyone who cares about them, I am resolved, along with all of my colleagues, to do all that I can do to show that Australians recognise that love is love and ensure that we in this place make a law for equal marriage.
Star of the Sea College
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:11): I recently visited Star of Sea College in Brighton to have a consideration with year 11 and year 12 young women who are studying global politics and legal studies. I want to say what a wonderful experience it was to hear directly from engaged, talented, switched-on young women taking an interest in the world beyond them. I have to say that some of the questions they asked me were challenging at the best of times. They asked me specifically on the challenges facing displaced refugees in Jordan and Lebanon from the Syrian crisis. They spoke at length to me about—and I won't ignore the irony of it—issues around a republic and issues of citizenship. And today may be an auspicious day to remind ourselves of the context of that discussion. They also asked me about the enduring question around marriage for same-sex couples, and we had a very honest and open conversation about the position of the Liberal Party and, more importantly, how we're going to resolve this issue to take the country forward together, which has always been my position.
So I just want to say to the professional, smart and switched-on young women of Star of the Sea College, thank you very much for having me down to talk about these issues. I particularly want to extend my thanks to the principal of Star of the Sea College, Ms Mary O'Connor, and teachers Peter Farrar, Andrew Dexter and Bernadette Turner for an excellent and engaging morning.
Lemnos Square
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:12): On Saturday, I was honoured to represent the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, at the official announcement of the naming of Lemnos Square in Albert Park. Saturday also marked the second anniversary of the unveiling of the Lemnos Gallipoli Memorial, which was erected and unveiled on this site in 2015, marking the 100th anniversary of the Australian nurses' arrival on the island of Lemnos during World War I. It was sculpted by renowned artist Peter Corlett. The statues comprise two evocative bronze figures—one of a nurse and the other the digger. It honours the role Australian nurses have played in the theatres of war more broadly, but specifically it honours their role on the Greek Island of Lemnos, which was the location of Australia's major hospital during the Gallipoli campaign.
Lemnos Square was formerly known as Foote Street Reserve. I want to thank the mayor of the city of Port Phillip, Councillor Bernadene Voss, for not only acknowledging the historical significance of the site in relation to our Anzac history but also acknowledging the large community of Greek migrants who have settled in the area and, in doing so, acknowledging the strong migrant history of Port Phillip. I also want to particularly thank Lee Tarlamis, the president of the Lemnos Gallipoli Commemorative Committee, and historian Jim Claven for their tireless efforts in raising awareness of the role of Lemnos in Australia's Anzac history. Both Lee and Jim have worked passionately and tirelessly to ensure that we are able to pay a fitting tribute to the nurses and diggers who served on Lemnos and those who are buried there and, through their effort and work, strengthening the bonds that exist between Greece and Australia.
Barker Electorate: Primary Industry
Mr PASIN ( Barker ) ( 16:14 ): I rise today to congratulate both Primary Producers SA, or PAPAS as we know them, and the National Farmers Federation on their announcement last Friday of their new partnership. Primary Producers SA is a coalition of peak bodies representing primary producers in South Australia. PPSA's foundation members are Grain Producers SA, Livestock SA, the Horticulture Coalition of SA, the Wine Grape Council of SA and the South Australian Dairyfarmers Association. These are all significant industries in my electorate of Barker and, as such, I have a keen interest to not only do my best to represent these industries in this place but also see that South Australian farmers are represented on the national stage with their interstate counterparts through the brilliant work of the NFF. To make the most of the opportunities, deals and challenges that face primary producers in South Australia, it's important that their voice is heard strongly with the rest of the nation when advocating for their interests in this place.
I was pleased to attend the GROWING SA 2017 conference in Hahndorf on Friday, where the announcement was made. I congratulated in person Tony Mahar, CEO of the NFF, and Rob Kerin, former Premier and Executive Chairman of PPSA. South Australia has a lot to contribute to our nation and so does its farmers. I'm glad to hear that they are going to be represented in this place.
Petition: Health Care
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:15): I present with great pleasure this petition to the parliament. This petition has 550 signatures or thereabouts.
The petition read as follows—
Restoration of preventative health funding in Tasmania
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. This petition of: Meander Valley, Northern Tasmania, to restore preventative health programs May 2017 draws to the attention of the House: In December, 2016, Commonwealth Government funding to Meander Valley municipality was removed causing cessation of several preventative health programs. Thousands of citizens lost their support through the removal of three health workers (a youth worker, social worker and a mental health worker). The Meander Valley is a rural area where, typically, there is high (youth) unemployment, high levels of mental health issues and low levels of access to support.
We therefore ask the House to: We, the undersigned, seek you intervention to reinstate these programs as soon as possible over the long term.
from 549 citizens
Petition received.
Canning Electorate: Small Business
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (16:17): Yesterday Laurie Oakes in his final column said that politicians need to get out more, need to speak with people, do town hall forums and visit businesses. I can say that, over the last six weeks, my team and I have done just that. We've had some great feedback. People are very worried about national security. They want to see a strong Australia, strong borders, a strong Defence Force and sustainable immigration. The one story I've really taken away from the past winter has been the small business story in Canning. We've got 11,000 small businesses. In the last two years we have seen the growth of 100 businesses or so. We've got some really exciting things happening.
I think of Tattarang Springs in Byford run by brothers Andrew and Dan Paton, who are going to produce local vodka and gin. I think of Laurie and Justin Byatt, poultry farmers in Canning, who produce 400,000 chickens every 60 days. I think of Josh Davenport in Carmel with Myattsfield Vineyards, who has recently started exporting to Taiwan and, if you are looking for a good red, I suggest you try the Joseph Myatt 2014 reserve—it's an absolute cracker. I think of Stephen and Shara Davies, who have just invested in Davies Apiaries. Stephen is a third-generation beekeeper, who does hives for the consumer. I think of Beef Natural and Gerald Bergsma in Mundijong, who does preservative-free meat. He does paddock to plate. It's a great story. There's a lot of innovation and it's very exciting. I'm proud.
Montgomery, Mr Bob
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:18): I recently met an amazing 73-year-old man, Bob Montgomery, who just completed his third solo bike ride. This time he rode from Darwin to Perth on a bicycle. Bob lives in the Blue Mountains in my electorate of Macquarie. He doesn't ride just for fun; he raises money for motor neurone disease and Huntington's disease research. As a Rotarian, Bob had enormous support from local Blue Mountains Rotary clubs as well as others on his travels. This was his most challenging ride yet, covering more than 4,000 kilometres through largely remote areas. To prepare for his ride, Bob cycled up to 500 kilometres a week throughout the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury, down to Windsor and out west to Jenolan Caves and Lithgow. These are not flat, easy bike rides. Supporting him was fellow Rotarian Bill Pixton. At 69 years, he brings youth to the team as the van driver.
Bob's raised tens of thousands of dollars for motor neurone disease and Huntingtons. Both are degenerative neurological disorders affecting muscles that control movement, speech, breathing and swallowing and affecting personality changes. There is widespread global research, but a cure is a long way off. Bob was honoured by his Rotary Club of Upper Blue Mountains Sunrise with a Paul Harris Fellow award. I congratulate him, Bill and Bob's wife, Jenny, for the amazing contribution that they've made.
Bennelong Electorate: Education
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:20): I rise to acknowledge a recent meeting I had in Parliament House comprising the visit of a very important delegation. St Charles Catholic Primary School's year 5 students fit me into their packed Canberra schedule. I was delighted to see them here last Thursday afternoon and present them with their attendance certificates. The students were an impressive group of young people who are a real credit to their teachers—Sandra Frost, Pam Panos and Jill Zaven—who brought their class a long way on behalf of their schools. The school also visited a large number of other Canberra attractions, which I'm sure made their visit entirely worthwhile.
This week I'm looking forward to hosting the year 6 class of Ermington Public School—Betty Cuthbert's former school. The Parliamentary Education Office does a wonderful job in organising these visits. Knowledge of how our political system works is critical for a robust democracy to work well in the future. These visits contribute greatly to that end.
Both St Charles and Ermington Public participated in my inaugural Bennelong Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Challenge earlier this year, which reflects their willingness to try new things and push themselves. Principals Jennifer Claro of Ermington and Peter Watkins of St Charles should be congratulated for setting such an impressive example for their students and teachers.
Chifley Electorate: Roads
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (16:21): Western Sydney motorists are the most tolled motorists in the entire country. They are being robbed blind by tolls and, disgracefully, things are set to get worse. Last week I spoke about how private toll operator Transurban reported a phenomenal 850 per cent leap in profit—850 per cent! Their investors marked them down and reduced their share price. Those investors think we're not making enough profit for Transurban—what shameless greed! To make matters worse, from Tuesday, Western Sydney drivers will be slugged by another toll on the M4 after they'd finished paying off this road five years ago. Drivers will have to pay $45.60 each week in tolls if they drive to and from work. That's a huge amount of money for people in Western Sydney—this, in a climate where wages growth is at an all-time low.
Outraged residents have taken to my Facebook page to voice their disgust at the New South Wales government. Roger Grealy, for example, wrote: 'The road has been built and paid for. Tolls are not justified.' eople pay road tax every time they register their cars. Say no to double-dipping road tolls.' They sold the power lines under the pretence that they would build infrastructure. Now, we have a new toll. So we are paying higher power prices and higher road tolls.'
Tolls make life harder for people already commuting long distances and paying more for transport. Enough is enough with these tolls.
Leichhardt Electorate: Vocational Education and Training
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (16:23): Life is what you make of it, so I'd encourage students from across Weipa to take full advantage of the new Western Cape Trade Skills Centre and create the future that they want. I officially opened the centre last month and was able to meet some of the students there. Liam, Katelyn, Jamiee-Lee and Brandon were happy to show me around so I could see the new facilities firsthand. This terrific new centre will give students the skills that they need to get jobs later in life and provide them with hands-on training in engineering and construction through the workshops. Students can also use the knowledge and skills that they develop to continue further study.
Many communities in Far North Queensland and across Australia are facing very serious skills shortages in trades like fitter and turner and plumbing. So the Western Cape Trades Skills Centre will not only benefit Weipa but put students on a path to jobs in a range of industries anywhere in the country. I'd encourage students to grab this opportunity with both hands and make the most of it. Congratulations to the entire school community for their foresight in getting the Western Cape Trade Skills Centre up and running. I think they've done an absolutely outstanding job, and I'm certainly looking forward to the first young ones coming out of that centre and into real trades and real apprenticeships. There are great opportunities up in Weipa.
Ballarat Electorate: Australian Football League
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (16:25): I'm very happy today to speak about the inaugural AFL game for the Western Bulldogs in my home town of Ballarat this weekend. They will be taking on the Port Adelaide Power in front of a sold-out crowd at the recently upgraded Mars Stadium. It's been incredible how much the town has got behind the Bulldogs since they committed to Ballarat in 2015. After last year's grand final win, when they brought the grand final cup to Ballarat, it seemed like the whole town came out to celebrate the win. And, in a demonstration of just how much of Ballarat has got behind the Bulldogs, the game sold out in a matter of minutes. But, for those who have missed out on tickets or just want to soak up the atmosphere on the day, the Ballarat council will have a free footy-live site at the Ballarat showgrounds, where people will be able to watch the game on a big screen and enjoy the family-friendly activities.
This weekend should be fantastic, and I'm really looking forward to attending the game on Saturday. Even though, throughout the year, we may barrack for different teams, this week all of Ballarat will be more Bulldog, and I am very proud to say for probably the first time in this place: Go Doggies!
Menzies Electorate: North East Link
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (16:26): Following the member for Ballarat, it would be remiss of me, as the spouse of a long-time member of the Western Bulldogs, not to say 'Go Doggies', this weekend as well. But this afternoon I want to talk about the North East Link, which is the missing link to connect Melbourne's freeway network between the Metropolitan Ring Road and the Eastern Freeway or EastLink. This is a vitally important piece of infrastructure for the constituents of Menzies. Indeed, each day, major roads such as Bulleen-Templestowe Road, Manningham Road; Bridge Street, Fitzsimons Lane and Warrandyte Road—particularly where those roads are major crossings of the Yarra River—are simply congested, morning and afternoon, every day.
So it's pleasing that the four possible routes for the North East Link have now been released. And these four options include a link from Greensborough Road to Bulleen Road, possible links to EastLink at Ringwood and a much longer outer ring road. Details about the possible routes can be found at northeastlink.vic.gov.au, and I note that there are a number of information sessions coming up shortly: this Thursday at the Veneto Club; Saturday at the Warrandyte Primary School; Sunday at the Banyule City Council offices in Greensborough; and, on Thursday the 24th, at the Maroondah Federation Estate in Ringwood. I commend them to my constituents.
Workplace Relations
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:27): Now we know that the Deputy Prime Minister is a bit distracted at the moment, and there are real questions over whether he is actually legitimately able to sit in this House as a member. But that doesn't forgive him for his constant attacks on Australian and Queensland coalminers living in Rockhampton and Central Queensland in the electorates of Capricornia and Dawson. Time and time again, he says that it is Labor that has let down these coalminers when it is not. It is his own government that refuses to stand with these coalminers—the coalminers of Oaky North who, again this week, have been locked out by their employer—multinational mining company Glencore—who is refusing to bargain with them. Instead, they have ordered that the workers take down 'Scabby the Rat', a blow-up protest rat.
Can you believe that, rather than letting these workers come back into the mine and back to work, they have locked them out and are replacing them with labour-hire workers? This practice is happening across the Bowen Basin. Time and time again, directly employed workers are being replaced with labour hire. There is no job security and there are pay cuts. They are being told they are full-time equivalent, yet have no sick leave or annual leave. This is what is happening in Queensland mines, yet the government and The Nationals are refusing to do anything to stand up for these workers. It is wrong.
Health Care
Ms BANKS (Chisholm) (16:29): No-one ever wants to contemplate the loss of their child. The parents of Riley Hughes and Dana McCaffery had the heart-wrenching experience of losing their children to whooping cough. The children were too young to be immunised and lost their battle against whooping cough at one month old. They were dependent on herd immunity—the community having been vaccinated—and both lived in areas with low immunisation rates.
Immunisation saves lives. It ensures we are protected from preventable diseases. The history of immunisation in Australia dates back to 1932, and we've had a 99 per cent decrease in preventable deaths from those diseases that are covered by Australian's national immunisation program.
The anti-vax movement is creating unfounded fear and myths about immunisation. The so-called anti-vaxers are irresponsible and think that, from their Google research, they know better. They don't. If they knew the facts, if they didn't dabble in ignorance when it comes to protecting their own children and those of others, these beautiful children would still be alive today. The facts are simply put: immunisation saves lives. It protects lives; it's fundamental.
I'm proud that the Turnbull government is launching the Get The Facts campaign to ensure that every Australian child has access to immunisation and is immunised where appropriate. We want to see 100 per cent of Australian children, who can safely be immunised, immunised. Every doctor in the country is of the view that immunisation is a critical thing to do to protect your children and to protect the community from preventable disease.
Energy
Roads
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (16:31): On 1 July, my community of Lindsay and communities right across New South Wales, saw their power bills rise by up to 20 per cent. This is an insult to my community, which already faces a cost of living that is three per cent higher than that of our city mates. The member for Chifley, in his electorate—three per cent higher; the member for Greenway—three per cent higher; and the member for Macarthur—three per cent higher.
On top of this electricity price hike, Stuart Ayers will tomorrow put a toll on a road that is already paid for. Labor removed the tolls; they're bringing them back. And to make matters worse, the tolls are going onto a road that is not even finished. The bottleneck still exists; there are still two lanes in the area that is now tolled, and residents across Western Sydney will now be paying $9 a day return on a road that was already paid for. This will add almost $50 a week to the expenses of the hardworking residents across Western Sydney that I represent. It is an absolutely unfair and undue tax on our community.
This will also impact the small businesses that relocated from the south-west of Sydney to Western Sydney to save money to run their businesses. On Friday, I met such a person running a business called Gotzinger Smallgoods, who told me how much money their business had saved by relocating into my electorate. This mob comes in here, talking about small business and being the champions of everybody. Well, I tell you what: $50 a week probably isn't much in Point Piper, but it is a lot to the residents that I represent, and I will fight this toll every day.
Operation Christmas Child
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (16:32): The second member for Mallee, a guy called Peter Fisher, who was a member of parliament from 1972 to 1993, used to say: the people of the Wimmera Mallee are very fair-minded people. I'm the fourth member for Mallee. I know we're not meant to use props, but this is a good cause. Did you know that we in the Mallee participate in a thing called Operation Christmas Child? This is where we get children, with their parents, to wrap a shoebox. These shoeboxes are then dumped at our electorate offices and sent overseas into the refugee camps in the poorer counties of the world. Last year, 13.1 million shoeboxes were delivered Australia-wide. My wife was fortunate enough to go to Cambodia a few weeks ago, where they handed out some of these shoeboxes. She said some of the children didn't want to open them. It was the first gift they'd ever received in their life.
What I want to say to the people of Australia is: it is really good to teach your children to be generous. Operation Christmas Child is a great thing to get involved in, to get children thinking about how they could pack a shoebox. All you do is get your shoebox. It has either a boy or a girl on it. There's a list of things you can put in, like toothpaste, a tooth brush or some toys. You pay $8 for the packaging and you get to send these shoeboxes overseas. This is an opportunity for Australians to be really generous to other parts of the world and encourage their children to be generous. Our offices will once again be open. Get involved!
Murray-Darling Basin Plan
Crime
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:34): A few weeks ago, Australians turned on their televisions and, in horror, learnt of allegations of millions of dollars' worth of water that had been stolen out of the Murray-Darling Basin—millions of litres of water that Australian taxpayers have paid for. That case, which allegedly involves corruption within the New South Wales government and private landholders, has been referred to the New South Wales ICAC, but it involves a federal scheme.
I believe that this one example, along with others, which I can cite, that clearly supports a case for the establishment of a federal anticorruption body—a federal ICAC, if you please. In Parliament House on Thursday, a conference will gather to lay out the case for why we need an anticorruption body at the federal level. I have mentioned the Murray-Darling Basin rorts. We have recently seen allegations of corruption in the Australian Border Force. We have also seen ASIO warnings about the danger of accepting donations from foreign donors. I think the case is compelling. There is no federal agency that has the scope or the powers of the state bodies like the New South Wales ICAC or the IBAC. Some say the media do the job. We cannot rely on the media alone. We need a federal anticorruption body here in Canberra.
Wright Electorate: Springbrook Men's Shed Association
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (16:35): An interesting statistic: men take their own lives at four times the rate of women. That's five men a day on average taking their life. Recently, I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the Springbrook Men's Shed Association. Springbrook is a beautiful little village nestled in the Gold Coast hinterland—a remarkable, robust little community. This community has demonstrated their resilience by organising their own men's shed. They procured some land from the Gold Coast city council. I want to publicly acknowledge Tom Tate, Mayor of the Gold Coast, who came up and was part of the opening ceremony. In particular, I acknowledge the president of the men's shed, Jim Darke, and 22 other members who, very industriously and entrepreneurially, procured a shed from the Defence facilities at Wallangarra—and I notice there's some Army personnel in the gallery today who are here on a Defence training program. They erected the shed themselves. That shed, in the community of Springbrook, will be the centralised hub. One of the amazing stories that came out at the opening was of two gentlemen who live on that mountain—a relatively small community—who live eight blocks apart from each other and didn't know each other existed. What a great day for men's sheds.
Bruce Electorate: South Korean Migrants
Mr HILL (Bruce) (16:37): Last week, I made the most satisfying emotional phone call to a constituent that I have had the privilege of making since being in this place. It was to the Lee family of Glen Waverley—David and Jessica, and their three kids, Daniel, Brian and Richard—to give them good news. Following a personal meeting I had the day before with Minister Hawke, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, he contacted me to say he had agreed to intervene in their case. They were crying and they could not speak. It was a desperate situation. They had lived in our country for 9½ years. They arrived as business migrants and through a series of misadventures, including bad advice from their lawyers and migration agents, for which they were ripped off $100,000, they had run out of legal options and they were two weeks from having to show the department their plane tickets to go back to South Korea or be locked up in immigration detention. People told me this case was impossible because the minister had previously refused to intervene. I met them and I felt that it was unfair. They were integrated into the community.
I wish to record my thanks to the member for Mitchell for agreeing to meet, for listening, for agreeing to reconsider the case and for reading all the personal letters, including from the Archbishop of Melbourne, on behalf of all Victorian bishops, the church, and nearly 100 members of the community. I visited them on Saturday and it was like seeing a different family, particularly Jessica, the mum—the relief was palpable. I thank the assistant minister.
Banks Electorate: Football
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:38): On 29 July, I attended the Revesby Rovers Soccer Football Club trivia night at Panania Diggers Club. It was the second year that the club has run this fundraiser. It was a great night. It was held to support the club, to help cover the costs of running the club and to contribute to its ongoing work in the community. Revesby Rovers have been part of the local community since the 1950s—it is actually the oldest club in the entire Bankstown area. The club plays at Amour Park. I want to thank Sean Russell, the President of Revesby Rovers, and all the other committee members who were there on the day for their hard work, and look forward to working with the club in the future.
On 31 July, I attended a regional football facilities forum, which was organised by the Bankstown District Amateur Football Association and the St George District Football Association. More than 10,000 people play football in my electorate every Saturday, and they do so under the auspices of the St George and Bankstown associations. It was a fantastic event. Basically, it was about helping clubs to understand more about how to apply for various funding programs, how to engage with government and a whole range of other issues. It was great to see Peakhurst United, Forest Rangers, Oatley RSL club and many others represented there. Thank you to Shane Merry from Bankstown District Amateur Football Association and Craig Kiely from St George for all the work they do in our community.
Rossiter, Mr Dean
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (16:40): Today I rise on a very sad note—to talk about the passing of Dean Rossiter on 7 August. He is the former chairman of the great South Australian bootmaker, Rossi Boots, which is situated in my electorate of Hindmarsh. Dean Rossiter was a highly respected businessman. He was a very proud Australian and a very proud South Australian. He contributed to the success of Rossi Boots with over 46 years at the helm, one of the last bootmakers in the state that produces a great Australian boot.
Rossi Boots was founded by Mr Rossiter's grandfather, Arthur Edward Rossiter, in 1910. Dean was very proud. He had given me tours of the factory many times: when I was a candidate in 1998, again in 2001 and continuously all those years while he was the director and manager of the place. He was always so proud to talk about being a bootmaker and someone that employed locally and made and produced a local, good product. Many times he had said to me how important it was that he had remained in South Australia, choosing to continue manufacturing these great boots locally when many other companies like his in and around the area had moved their operations offshore. Many times he had said to me that it would be more viable, but he was so proud.
My thoughts and condolences go out to his family and friends. I thank him for his great contribution to South Australia. Our thoughts today are with all of his employees and all of the people at the Rossi Boots factory at Hilton.
Mining Industry
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:40): The Bowen Basin economy is making a comeback on the back of rebounding coal prices, but the resurgence is restrained because big mining companies refuse to pay their bills on time. Ignoring their supplier's 30-day terms, these companies delay payment to 60 or 90 days, sometimes contesting invoices to push it out to 120 or 150 days. Most of the businesses are forced to bankroll the cash flow of these multimillion-dollar mining companies, and most of these small businesses have a turnover of less than $5 million. They're unable to secure the same terms from their own suppliers.
The Resource Industry Network in Mackay surveyed members on the impact of these sorts of policies, and the responses from members suffering huge cash flow impacts are telling. I can't name the businesses concerned, because they all fear retribution from the big mining companies. But one said: 'We have had to drastically cut our inventory, thereby increasing lead times on orders and service levels to our clients. We've had to reduce staff numbers drastically, thereby reducing our service levels considerably.' Another said: 'When challenged on breach of contract agreements, they just say, "Well, sue us." And then there will be a long, drawn-out legal battle—unaffordable—and we'll never get a contract with them again.' So, not surprisingly, the actions of these big mining companies have been described again and again as immoral.
The Resource Industry Network took issue with the Queensland Resources Council, which, unfortunately, saw the problem as a commercial decision. I call on the big miners to do something about this before government has to act.
Deputy Prime Minister
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:43): I was in the chamber this morning when the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Joyce, made that bombshell of a statement that he may not be a citizen of Australia, which brought into question whether he was actually the member for New England, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
My thoughts actually went to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority when he made that statement. My thoughts went to the APVMA and the families and staff there who have been victims of the blatant and shameless pork-barrel that this minister has undertaken with the potential relocation of the APVMA. What we found out today was that he may not actually be a minister. My thoughts turn to the fact that 200 families may have to move up to Armidale as part of this blatant and shameless pork-barrelling exercise enforced by a minister who may actually not be a minister. My thoughts turn to the fact that the relocation was based on a cost-benefit analysis that showed that there was no benefit to this relocation and it was all cost—a CBA that was produced by a minister who may not actually be a minister. It is absolutely outrageous what this minister who may actually not be a minister has done to the APVMA, and I call him out for his shameless and blatant pork-barrelling.
Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club, Gippsland Chapter
Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (16:45): On 20 August, next Sunday, it will be the Long Tan commemoration day for the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club, Gippsland Chapter. Six of them began the organisation to give Vietnam vets the opportunity to be part of the broader Victorian Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club. As I said, only six of them started out and they then found a place—a place to stay, a place to be, a place to belong—and that was the old Longwarry North Hall, which they've turned into a clubhouse that gives the Vietnam vets the opportunity to be part of the community. They have not only become part of the community; they've also donated to the CFA, the SES and organisations in the area and they’ve helped Kids With Cancer raise money for the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and the children's hospital.
The colours that members of the chapter wear are symbolic not only of the members they represent who were lost but also of members who are still living who must go on in their memory. The Gippsland chapter wear their colours with pride. A long time ago now I went to their first Long Tan commemoration day and now there are hundreds of motorcycles and hundreds of people that attend this very important ceremony.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has now concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Ocean Conservation
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:47): I 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 Marine National Park (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.
The motion that is in front of the chamber notes that the international community came together from 5 to 9 June this year in New York to recognise the importance of our oceans.
When the Australian government appeared at that conservation conference they put on the record what they believed were the achievements from Australia and why Australia should be recognised as a good citizen in terms of protection of the ocean. And do you know what the Australian government referred to in the contribution they made at that UN meeting? They referred to protections that were put in place by the previous Labor government when I was environment minister—protections that they're now trying to remove. That was the way the Australian government sought to give themselves a pat on the back. That was the way the Australian government sought to represent this country to the rest of the world, while not managing to mention to the rest of the world that the Australian government are now actively in the process of removing protections in the ocean.
The removal of protections now being proposed by this government is no small matter at all. At a time when the ocean is under more pressure than ever before, at a time when plastics, pollution, acidification and overfishing are all creating challenges in the ocean beyond what we have experienced before, what does this government decide it's time to do? In terms of area, this government is now engaging in the largest removal of protected areas in the history of any government on the planet. Let me say that again: of all the conservation decisions that have ever been made by any government in history, this government right now is engaging in the largest removal of areas from conservation ever in history.
The government is talking about areas like the Coral Sea, at a time when to have protection really does matter. You only have to look at what's happening to coral reefs throughout the world to recognise that the health of these areas is of extraordinary importance. Whether it's Osprey Reef, Shark Reef, Bougainville, Marion Reef or Vema Reef, as you go through the different lists, there are almost none that escape the cuts that this government is making. Half the areas that'd been established as marine national park are being proposed to be removed as marine national park.
The minister says: 'Look, it's not a problem, because the boundaries are being kept the same. We're just changing the rules on what you can do inside them.' Imagine if we took half the national parks on land and said: 'Look, it's fine. The boundary's still there, you're just allowed to go in now and shoot the native animals.' People would understand exactly how offensive and bizarre that is, but that's exactly what this government is proposing to do with the national parks that've been established in our oceans.
National parks in the ocean make a real difference, and we've got proof that they make a real difference. Why do we have proof of that? Because the Howard government did the right thing on this. The Howard government established the zoning in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Howard government—quite bravely at that time, and against the views of some of their own membership—put in some areas where no fishing would be allowed at all and other areas where sustainable fishing was permitted. At the time, some people said: 'If you take away our right to fish, it concentrates us in other areas and it means that we'll never get the health. You're better off just spreading it out and letting everything happen everywhere.'
The science is now in on what the Howard government did. Take the species of coral trout. Coral trout inside the protected areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park have 80 per cent additional biomass to the coral trout in the non-protected areas—an 80 per cent difference in the biomass. It's been established and proven by the Howard government itself that protected areas make a substantive difference in the health of the environment, but this government has decided to break the accord that Australia had observed ever since environmental protection first began.
When an area is first put under protection, it's not unusual for there to be a political argument about the boundaries and the level of protection. That happened when Joh Bjelke-Petersen wanted to drill in the Great Barrier Reef. That happened when Bob Hawke was determined to make sure that we saved the Franklin, the Daintree and Kakadu. Those sorts of arguments have happened at different times but, once it's locked in, it's a lock. Once it's protected, there have been no backwards steps. Even though the Fraser government might not have liked some of the decisions that the Whitlam government made, once made, they respected that there would be no backwards steps in environmental protection. At the time that some World Heritage listings were made, even though the Howard government had opposed some of the protections that had been put in place by the Hawke and Keating governments, once the Howard government came in, they had a decision of no backwards steps.
The Abbott-Turnbull governments are the first governments we have had in the country which have been willing to remove areas from protection. First of all, we saw it with the World Heritage areas in Tasmania, where this government sought to get the World Heritage Committee to take areas out of protection. The World Heritage Committee dealt with the application in about three minutes—with Portugal describing this government's application as 'feeble'—and threw it out unanimously.
But this government has continued with what they're doing on the oceans. Bear in mind that what's happening with the oceans has led to a situation where the Turnbull government is, in fact, worse on this than the Abbott government was. The Abbott government commissioned a review into the marine national parks that I'd put in place under the previous Labor government. What did the Abbott government review find? I quote:
The ESP is satisfied that the marine bioregional planning programme, which was based on the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia and complemented by scientific workshops, peer-reviewed publications and literature reviews, was a sound basis and drew upon the best available information for designing the CMR networks.
After all the claims that those opposite had made that this wasn't science based, the Abbott government review came back and said, 'Yes, it was,' and then this government decided to gut the protection anyway.
The Coral Sea, which is the cradle for the Great Barrier Reef, is magnificent in its own right and provides an area of buffer zone for the Great Barrier Reef. The government's decisions, if they continue with this, will mean that the longliners will be back. Longlining will happen up and down that area with all the challenges that go with that. That will be the outcome when they remove the protection in areas like the Diamantina Fracture Zone, off the south-west of Western Australia—areas where we have some of the deepest water in Australia's oceans. Large chunks of it will be taken out of protection. We know that protecting these areas makes a quantitative difference to the health of the ocean and the species that live within it. We know the extent to which we rely on the ocean for our industries—not only tourism but also sustainable fishing. They all rely on the oceans being healthy. And we know that the government's own review said the principles upon which these plans were put in place were science based, and yet the government is now looking at making the decision to remove the largest areas for conservation that has ever been undertaken by any country in the world. There are some pretty dodgy countries around the world that have taken areas out of conservation from time to time. It's not a list you want to be on and it's certainly not a list you want to top, but that is what the Minister for the Environment and Energy is currently contemplating doing.
My request here is simple: get back to the consensus that existed throughout the Howard government and throughout the Fraser government. It has been here in Australia for generations. It says that, once an area is protected, there will be no backward steps. A process of protection that began under Keating, continued under Howard and was concluded in the last Labor government is now potentially being gutted by this government. I will tell you what: the next generations will not thank this mob for wrecking the health of pristine areas of the ocean.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Ms BUTLER: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:57): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on a motion that is of great importance to my very appropriately named electorate of Fisher. I'm grateful to the member for Watson for giving us the opportunity to debate it. We all know that the Sunshine Coast has the best beaches and the best seafood in Australia. What is less well known is that we also have the largest longline tuna and prawn fishing fleets on the East Coast. You could say that Mooloolaba is our nation's fishing capital. Fishing on the Sunshine Coast generates $42.5 million in direct sales every year, with more than $30 million in exports. Throughout South-East Asia, people are serving Mooloolaba prawns and Coral Sea tuna caught in my local community. Fishing on the Sunshine Coast, though, is much more than just a successful industry. It is part of our culture. Between the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast, there are 140,000 recreational boats. Like five million other Australians for more than a century, residents in my electorate have exercised their right to throw a line over the side of their tinnie.
The oceans off the Sunshine Coast and around Australia have been bountiful but are not a bottomless resource. Our ocean must be carefully maintained. We have to protect our reefs and sustain our marine life while ensuring that local people and businesses on the Sunshine Coast can use their boats for fishing, diving, and tourism. For that reason, we need marine reserves and parks. In July, the Commonwealth government released its own draft plan for managing these parks. The documents are online now for Australians to read and have their say. The 2012 plan to which the member for Watson referred in this motion, created as it was by Julia Gillard's Labor government, increased the size of our marine parks to almost 40 per cent of Commonwealth waters and locked commercial fishermen out completely from more than a third of that area. Had the 2012 plan been permitted to continue as he suggests, everyday recreational fishers would have been banned from an area of ocean the size of the Northern Territory with no environmental benefit in sight. Like its approach to energy, Labor's plan was highly ideological, excessive and wasteful.
The government's new plan dramatically increases the area available to recreational fishers, opening up 97 per cent of those Commonwealth waters, which are within 100 kilometres of the shoreline. For commercial fishing, we simply got smarter about how we manage marine parks. The size of the parks will stay the same, but only 20 per cent of them will be designated green zones, where no fishing can happen. In those zones, the fish will be able to spawn and feed, while the remaining 80 per cent will protect the sea floor but allow fishing in the waters above.
The environmental outcomes from the plan will be world-class. We should not be distracted by Labor's ideological objections or the complaints of Northern Hemisphere lobby groups, whose own fisheries have been decimated and who now seek to criticise us. With 36 per cent of our surrounding waters covered by marine parks, we will have smashed the UN's target of 10 per cent. We will have the second-largest area under marine management in the world and sustainable stocks of marine life for the future. We will have increased the number of protected ecological features on the sea floor from 192 to 265 and expanded the areas where oil and gas exploration is banned. However, we will also have halved the economic impact on commercial fishers and opened up 80 per cent of the parks to sensible, sustainable fishing.
As part of my work to help make the Sunshine Coast the place to be for education, employment and retirement, I met some of our hardworking local fishers, like Pavo Walker from Walker Seafoods and Johnny Rockliff from Rockliff Seafoods, when I brought the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to Mooloolaba last month. Like many others, they were rightly concerned about the future of fishing in Australia. But I am pleased to say that they were reassured by the new draft plan.
The federal government supports and will maintain the Australian tradition of being allowed to throw a line over the side of a boat. The government's new plan enshrines that ability and will keep Mooloolaba, the Australian fishing capital— (Time expired)
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (17:02): I rise to speak to this motion, because it is important that we focus on conservation for our oceans. Our oceans are under siege from climate change and pollution, so it is a wonderful thing that the Howard government initiated this process of protecting marine reserves. It is also a wonderful thing that the last Labor government decided, in November 2012, to rapidly expand the number of protected areas. The consequence of that was that 36 per cent of our oceans ended up as protected areas and a third of that 36 per cent had the highest level of protections. That meant that 2.3 million square kilometres of ocean was protected under actions taken by the member for Watson, when he was the minister, and the previous Labor government.
But one of the first things that then Prime Minister Abbott did, after the new Liberal government was elected in 2013, was to put a freeze on the marine conservation work that was being done to stop the process that was underway in respect of marine sanctuaries and commission a review. Then, three years later, in 2016, that review finally reported and recommended cuts to conservation and cuts to the marine sanctuaries. It was a very grave shame that it happened, and since then we've seen this government release a report with respect to how they plan to cut the marine sanctuaries that had previously been implemented under Labor.
What a shame that this government intends to engage in the largest removal of protected areas in oceans that any government in the world has ever undertaken. This is going to be the largest attack on marine sanctuaries by any government anywhere in the history of the planet, and that is a very, very grave shame, because our oceans are under siege. We do have a lot of concerns about the oceans. I'm particularly concerned about what's happening in the Great Barrier Reef. It's not irrelevant to note the concerns that scientists across the world have in relation to warming in oceans and what is happening with the Great Barrier Reef. As you would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, the last three years have seen an unprecedented global coral bleaching event, which has had a devastating impact on many coral reef ecosystems around the world, including our own Great Barrier Reef, a place where many of us have spent time. A lot of us have snorkelled there, a lot of us went up there as kids and went out onto the Great Barrier Reef. We are now seeing a situation where the Great Barrier Reef itself is under threat.
The World Heritage Committee met in early July in Poland and expressed its utmost concern regarding the serious impacts from coral bleaching that have affected World Heritage properties—of course, including the Great Barrier Reef—and noted that the most widely reported impacts are on the Great Barrier Reef and called on all state parties to undertake the most ambitious implementation of the Paris Agreement. We need to take whatever action we can to protect our oceans. That means protecting marine sanctuaries. That means taking real action on climate change.
When I talk about climate change, it is important to note that the World Heritage Centre has released the first global scientific assessment of the impact of climate change on World Heritage coral reefs. The assessment found that it's a well-established conclusion of international peer-reviewed literature that limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 per cent above pre-industrial levels provides a chance of retaining coral dominated communities for many reef locations around the globe. In other words, if we are able to combat climate change, if we are able to try to stay within that target level, then that gives reefs a chance.
We need to take action and we need to become serious about oceans. Cutting marine sanctuaries and failing to act on climate change are, unfortunately, steps in the wrong direction when it comes to doing something about protecting our oceans and protecting our reefs. I've been really critical of this government's action, or inaction, on climate change. I know a lot of groups who are active in this space like the Australian Marine Conservation Society that have been very critical about this government's priorities—for example, the fact that it's considering a $1 billion taxpayer-funded concessional loan to go off to the Adani project. I've said very clearly that I don't support giving $1 billion of public funds to a company on a concessional loan basis. I think that a lot of people in this place would be of the same mind. When it comes to actually focusing on what we can do proactively not just defensively for oceans, let's not cut marine sanctuaries. (Time expired)
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:07): Marine parks are a critical national resource not just for conservation purposes but also for the sustainability of fishing stocks. Australia's pre-existing network of Commonwealth marine parks strikes a good balance between the sometimes conflicting goals of environmental conservation, fishing rights and mining. My electorate of Mayo fronts some of the most prime marine real estate in Australia. Ecotourism and fishing contribute significantly to our regional economy, from dolphin and sea tours to fishing charters. Until the advent of the Abbott government, coalition governments had previously had a strong and proud record of building up Australia's network of Commonwealth marine parks, gradually established since the Fraser years, with major progress achieved in the declaration of 22 Commonwealth marine reserves over the course of the Howard government. This just makes it even more concerning that the coalition policy on marine parks has since undertaken a complete about face. In 2013, then Prime Minister Abbott suspended the operation of the entire Commonwealth marine park system on the pretext that there needed to be another comprehensive review of their operation. Why the review could not have occurred without a suspension has never been particularly clear to me. Commonwealth marine parks are comprised of multiple zones in accordance with the categories from the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
The most critical zone, which provides the most rigorous marine sanctuary and conservation protection, is the marine national park zone. The first thing to note is that these draft management plans do not accord with recommendations of the two reports of the independent review completed in 2015. For example, the independent report recommended that the south-west marine park network, which is directly adjacent to my electorate, should receive a small percentage increase in its quantity of national park zones. However, the draft management plan seeks, instead, to reduce the national park zones by an incredible 40 per cent. Indeed, across the entire Commonwealth marine park system, the coalition's draft plans seek to reduce the national park zones by 40 million hectares. To put that into some context, that's an area twice the size of Victoria; it constitutes almost half of the high-protection national park zones.
I feel that this is an attempt to undermine the legacy of former coalition and Labor governments which have worked so hard to establish our current marine park network. The coalition government is disguising this decision as protection of commercial fishers' rights. However, all indications from the commercial fishers from South Australia are that they are very supportive of the pre-existing marine park networks and are cognisant that the marine national park sanctuaries contribute to the long-term sustainability of the Australian fishing industry. A number of the areas being opened up to commercial fishers have not ever been fished, and there are questions about how practical it will be to get to these areas, which are far offshore and remote from ports, to commercially fish them.
Even a cursory look at the coalition's draft plans indicates that this is not a story about fishing but a story about offshore mining interests. In short, it is about big oil. NXT understands that Australia's large oil and gas reserves are a national economic resource, and our intention is not to stop safe and legitimate mining activity. However, we also recognise that there are areas of high conservation value that need protection and that there are areas where it is unsafe to drill without the risk of a catastrophe. For example, we in the NXT have been very vocal in our opposition to deep-sea oil drilling in the Great Australian Bight, where independent modelling from the Wilderness Society has indicated that a major oil spill could spread across our coasts to as far as the north coast of Tasmania, out to New Zealand in the east and to Esperance in the west.
The government's draft plans are also based on a flawed process. When questions were raised by the Nick Xenophon Team in Senate estimates, we learned that over 54,000 submissions were made to the statutory consultation process conducted by Parks Australia in September and October 2016. The context of these submissions was kept secret on the basis that they were commercial in confidence, and for privacy reasons. However, we know that 99.9 per cent of those submitted were described as 'conservation', indicating prima facie an exceptionally strong level of support for maintaining or increasing the level of marine sanctuary and protection.
We understand the consultation process on the marine park management plans must still run its course. However, we reserve our position on the final management plans. It is fair to say we have grave concerns on the draft management plans that have been circulated, so we reserve our position and remain deeply concerned.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Given there are no further speakers on the debate at this time, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Western Australia: Infrastructure
Dr ALY (Cowan) (17:13): I 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;
(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.
I'm pleased to put forward this motion because it draws attention to the neglect of Western Australia by this government. There are 15 Liberal members and senators from Western Australia, six of whom are Liberal federal ministers—that's one-fifth of the cabinet—but not one of them is willing to stand up for Western Australia when it counts. Not one of them is willing to fight for WA jobs. Not one of them is willing to fight for WA infrastructure. And Western Australia has, time and time again, been dudded by this federal Liberal government, robbing us of jobs and the opportunity to build a better state. Excluding the GST top-up funding, which we so righteously deserve—and I don't want to get started on GST or we might be here for a while—in 2015-2016, WA received just $437 million of federal infrastructure funding. In the 2016-2017 budget, that dropped to $390 million.
So, as unemployment soared, the people of Western Australia were doing it tough. Families were struggling, mortgage stress was through the roof and we were all crying out for job-creating projects. But those cries fell on deaf and uncaring ears. Then the WA state election happened, where more than 100,000 voters turned away from the Liberals and the Nationals, who had taken them for granted, and 26 seats were lost. And, in almost the blink of an eye, infrastructure spending in WA almost tripled. Those opposite will crow about it and call it their victory. They'll talk about this as a great investment in jobs and growth and pat themselves on the back. But we all know this one thing: that not one Liberal from WA or anywhere else paid any attention to Western Australia until their jobs were on the line—and that from our federal representatives, who we are meant to trust to fight for us and advocate for us. Western Australia will not be taken for granted. We will not be the 'wait a while' state.
But infrastructure spending isn't the only area in which WA is being neglected. For years now, the rate of methamphetamine usage in WA has been one of the highest across the country, ripping families and communities in Western Australia apart. And, despite regional WA having the highest meth use of anywhere in Australia, we received just 11.4 per cent of the federal funding to tackle addiction. In contrast, New South Wales has almost three times as many people, but its population uses meth at less than half the rate of Western Australians and yet New South Wales has been allocated 31.2 per cent of Ice Action Strategy funding pie. Those numbers simply do not add up for Western Australia. The funding is not enough to cope with the magnitude of the problem in Western Australia, and the Turnbull government, with its six WA ministers and 15 WA Liberal ministers and senators, won't do anything about it.
Just four days ago, it was confirmed that the Turnbull government has refused to invest any money in the new Perth stadium. There's been $100 million promised to the Townsville stadium, and past governments have put a total of $244 million towards football stadiums in New South Wales, in Victoria and in Adelaide. But, as is so often the case with this Liberal government, there is nothing for the people of Western Australia. I'm actually really pleased to see my colleagues from the other side here to speak on this—because, unless their jobs are on the line, they don't do anything for Western Australia. Unless the government are on the line, they are dragged kicking and screaming to do anything for Western Australia. I implore this Liberal government and I implore my colleagues over the other side to stop taking Western Australia for granted. Stop taking us for granted. Stop ignoring us. Stop neglecting us. Western Australians deserve better representation than this. Whether it's in infrastructure funding, whether it's in funding to tackle methamphetamine addiction or whether it's in funding for a stadium, time and time again we're getting left behind. Whether it's the national discourse on housing affordability, which simply does not take into account any of the WA experience, whether it's the national discourse on tax or whether it's the national discourse on infrastructure, we are consistently being left out. I feel the pain of Western Australians in my electorate when, every time they see me, they ask me, 'What is this government doing for us?' I implore the government to start taking notice of WA. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Is there a seconder for this motion?
Mr Khalil: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (17:19): I rise to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Cowan, which I might say is quite an absurd motion. The coalition government is investing a record amount of money in infrastructure—some $75 billion in infrastructure funding and financing from 2017-18 and 2026-27—to get the airports that we need and to get road and rail network infrastructure projects off the ground. One of the key planks of this government is its commitment to investment in infrastructure.
In Western Australia, we've recently heard about a commitment of some $6.8 billion in infrastructure in terms of the big picture. The majority of that money, to be fair, is going to the city. But I'm a regional member, and they're the things that I'm interested in, and that is not captured in that $6.8 billion. What I do know is that there is an abundance of big infrastructure projects in the northern end of Western Australia, in my seat of Durack. I'm not sure if the member for Cowan gets out of the city much, but, if she does, she might be pleasantly surprised at the investment that the coalition has made throughout the north-west of my state, and that's because this government is backing regional Australia.
In my electorate, we have the Great Northern Highway upgrade, which is a $344 million project, to which the federal government has committed around 75 per cent of the total funds. There's also the North West Coastal Highway upgrade, to which the federal government has committed $86.1 million, the total of which is $108 million. There is also the $6 million Derby Airport upgrade; $50 million for the Cape Leveque Road, which will do amazing things for those people along the peninsula; $45 million for the road between Kununurra and Wyndham, which, again, is going to be of huge support to that area and open up the port; $12 million for the Northern Australia Beef Roads project; and $100 million to help create the Outback Way across Western Australia, the Northern Territory and through to Queensland. Not in my electorate, another great project is the Great Southern housing project, to which the federal government is committing $10 million. It would be remiss of me not to talk about the Remote Airstrip Upgrade Program, which we've already spent nearly $5 million on, with airports in Norseman, Carnarvon and Wiluna. We mustn't forget the National Stronger Regions Fund and the Building Better Regions Fund streams, which are all starting to filter through, and we're starting to get runs on the board in my seat of Durack.
It should be noted that these programs never existed when those opposite were running the show. In six long years, we had no commitment to regional Australia. My concern is that should we have the day when those opposite are sitting on this side of the chamber those types of programs will disappear. I'll be doing everything I can to ensure that doesn't happen.
The National Stronger Regions Fund has delivered numerous projects in my electorate, including $300,000 which was recently committed to the Kununurra Rodeo and Campdraft facilities, which is allowing that rodeo association to expand their facilities, to host events year-round and to become a real regional hub for those types of activities. I went there the other day to open it. We had a lot of fun. And I hope that I'll be able to get out there again to do the same. From the National Stronger Regions Fund, in 2016, Durack received about $10 million for eight projects, and with the more recent Building Better Regions Fund, we've secured money for nine separate programs—a total of $20 million. As you can see, in addition to all the roads we're upgrading, that's a huge commitment to my electorate. At the weekend, I had the pleasure of another National Stronger Regions Fund application for the Dowerin Short Stay Accommodation precinct. They received a $800,000 federal government contribution, which was very well-received. What a great project it is.
With the time that's remaining, I want to talk briefly about GST reform. We know that there's a lot of barbs being thrown across the chamber. What has disappointed me in terms of my Western Australian Labor colleagues is the pitiful, miserable submission they put into the GST inquiry. We actually need everybody singing from the same song sheet. If you read that submission, you'd be left thinking, 'Oh, there's nothing to see here. There's nothing to see here.' But for us to get real reform to the GST model, we need my Western Australian Labor colleagues to be talking with their Labor counterparts in Victoria, in the Northern Territory and in Queensland because, without agreement from all states, we're going nowhere. It's very disappointing that we can stand here today and talk about what we are not doing for our state when the Labor representatives from our great state are not doing what they ought to be doing.
Mr HAMMOND (Perth) (17:19): I'm delighted to rise and speak on this motion in support of my great colleague, neighbouring the wonderful federal electorate of Perth, and that is the member for Cowan, Dr Anne Aly. She's doing a terrific job in representing her constituents but also representing the great state of Western Australia.
It must be said that any discussion about the extent to which Western Australia needs vastly more investment in infrastructure than it is currently receiving can't be made in the abstract. When one has regard to the disturbing bedfellows—being a state Liberal government and a federal Liberal coalition government—over the last few years, one doesn't wonder why we are in such a mess as we're in now. It is no wonder, having inherited such a deplorable set of financial books from the inept previous Liberal government of Colin Barnett, that we have so much more ground to make up than is currently on the table with the paltry offerings, the paltry investment—the feather duster type investment—in infrastructure from this federal government.
Let's paint the picture. The last time we saw a state Labor government—in relation to ensuring that there is a healthy set of books within which to support an atmosphere of consumer confidence and strong employment prospects—was 2008. What did we see in 2008, Madam Deputy Speaker? We saw a situation where the state was in surplus to the tune of $2 billion. To the extent we had debt it was in the range of about $3 billion, as we were slowly but surely ascending into a once-in-a-lifetime construction phase of a mining boom that was to sweep the state of Western Australia.
Fast forward to a time when the Liberal Party took government. We saw a revolving door of five treasurers in the eight years they were in power. What do we see at the end of that time? What do we have to show for it in Western Australia? We have a deficit of over $3 billion and a debt that, on the forward projections, in only 12 months time will be in the range of $40 billion. The reason that is relevant is that you can't have a conversation about the need to invest in infrastructure in Western Australia without it being proportionate to the size of the problem, and the size of the problem is largely a result of either ignorance, wilful blindness or neglect—or hubris—on the part of the former state Liberal government or this current federal government.
As we come off the tail end of that mining boom and look around to see the significant nation-building infrastructure projects that ought to be there before our eyes in Western Australia, we see two things. No. 1, we see state based initiatives that have been so poorly handled or so poorly invested in that we haven't got anything close to bang for our buck. No. 2, we see that any truly groundbreaking infrastructure projects in Western Australia were brought about as a result of a federal Labor government prior to 2013. The one thing that all of our members here have in common—both sides of the aisle—is that we all jump in cars and go off to the airport. As we make our way from the west to the east we see Gateway WA, a nation-building piece of infrastructure that was brought about as a result of federal Labor advocacy. We see a Great Eastern Highway upgrade that was brought about as a result of federal Labor advocacy.
In relation to investment and infrastructure from this federal government, what do we have to show in terms of any meaningful projects? Let's have a look at the budget papers; that is where it's terrific. Apart from level crossings and facilitations, what we're going to see is assessment of business cases by Infrastructure Australia in relation to rail. What we're going to see is: 'You can have, on the one hand, your Perth funding money, but you can only have it to the extent that you do what we tell you to do.' It's not really $1.2 billion at all; it is a conditional $1.2 billion. What is so sad about this debate is that it is so conditional upon the mismanagement of this federal government and a previous state Liberal government.
Mr MORTON (Tangney) (17:29): When you listen to WA Labor, particularly their federal members of parliament, you have to discount what they say and look at their actions. Nothing is more stark in this debate than the pathetic submission they made to the Productivity Commission in relation to the GST.
A government member: They're not hear to listen to you.
Mr MORTON: No, they are not here to listen. They like to make their political point and they like to scamper. But what did they say in their submission to the Productivity Commission? The WA federal Labor members were seeking:
… an outcome to this situation, but one that doesn't negatively impact other states and territories.
And they stand in this place and try to suggest that we should all stand up for Western Australia when they fail to do so themselves! What did Roger Cook, the Labor's Deputy Premier, say about them?
If they haven't supported the State Government's position they need to take more notice of it … It's time that people get real about this …
This is a direct message from state Labor to federal Labor in Western Australia. But The Sunday Times went further and said that:
WA Federal Labor MPs and Senators have not only hung WA out to dry, but also their State colleagues
It is shameful. What we know about Labor is that they're good at politics, but they're not good at delivering.
A government member: Are you sure they're good at that?
Mr MORTON: Perhaps not. But we're here today to talk about infrastructure, and the motion from the member for Cowan could not be further from the truth. I want to celebrate the $2.3 billion joint commitment to road and rail infrastructure projects between the federal government and the state Labor government in Western Australia, $1.6 billion of which was invested by the federal government in this budget alone in important road and rail projects that will create 6,000 local jobs and build 17 new congestion-busting projects across the metropolitan area.
The member for Cowan is talking about infrastructure today. I missed the first part of her speech, and she's not here to hear mine. I don't know if she spoke about the two projects in her electorate. One is the $65 million for Wanneroo Road and Ocean Reef Road interchange, which is one of the most congested intersections in the Perth metropolitan area. The project will boost capacity and traffic flow, ease congestion and improve safety for all road users. Today could have been a great opportunity to speak about that in a positive way. The other project is the $50 million for Wanneroo Road and Joondalup Drive interchange, the sixth most congested intersection in the Perth metropolitan area. These are important projects for the people of Cowan, and it's a shame that the member for Cowan isn't talking positively about them.
To say that the Turnbull government has failed to deliver for the people of Cowan is a load of rubbish. A big win for Tangney and for the people of the federal electorate of Fremantle, part of the $1.6 billion invested by the federal government, is the Roe Highway extension past the Kwinana Freeway and the provision of better and safer access to Fiona Stanley Hospital and the Murdoch Specialised Activity Centre. I am very proud to stand by my state Labor colleagues, in particular Peter Tinley, and welcome this important contribution to making our streets less congested and improving important access to the Murdoch Specialised Activity Centre. I hope that the member for Fremantle, who will contribute to this debate today, will also welcome and acknowledge that cooperation between the state Labor government and the federal Liberal government in relation to that project.
But on top of our commitment, on top of that combined $2.3 billion commitment to WA roads and rail, there is $1.2 billion that still remains to build Roe 8 and Roe 9. It is there as a contingent liability. It can be done. WA Labor is blocking this investment. All that needs to happen is for Premier Mark McGowan to say yes and to create those jobs that we need today. The Perth Freight Link, Roe 8 and Roe 9 will take 7,000 trucks off our roads and 74,000 light vehicles. Fourteen sets of traffic lights will be bypassed on Leach Highway and Stock Road. The construction of Roe 8 would save 450,000 tonnes of CO2 by 2031.
I raise this point because Labor did not commit to cancelling Roe 8 and Roe 9 until a month before election day. I don't think they really wanted to put a stop to this project, but I acknowledge that they did win the election. In the southern suburbs, they had less of a swing than they had in the northern suburbs, which proves that the people in the southern suburbs want this project. I'm calling on the Labor Party to have a look at that $1.2 billion that's there for this project and look at an alternative engineering solution to take traffic from the Kwinana Freeway to Fremantle so that our southern suburbs can benefit. (Time expired)
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (17:34): I thank the member for Cowan for bringing this motion forward. In her first 12 months as a representative, she's worked incredibly hard to be a responsive and strong advocate for her community. A big part of that has involved arguing for much-needed infrastructure projects in Perth's northern suburbs. I'm proud to work with her and my other WA Labor colleagues to fight for Western Australia's fair share of infrastructure investment, a fair share that has not been forthcoming under a coalition government that continues to take the west for granted. We need that investment because it means the ability to deliver public transport, it means shipbuilding and port facilities, and it means bridges and black spot solutions that reduce congestion and improve safety.
Smart, forward-looking investment in infrastructure is important because it lifts productivity, creates jobs and creates opportunities for small businesses and home businesses alike. But, unfortunately, this government has underinvested in national infrastructure. Not even their best year of investment can match the lowest year of investment under the former Labor government. In WA, we have had the worst of it. WA accounts for 11 per cent of the population and 33 per cent of the Australian landmass. Our state manages the costs and the logistical challenges of remoteness on an unprecedented scale. It needs to be supported, especially in a time of sharp economic downturn, but we've not yet received a fair or proportionate investment from the Abbott-Turnbull government. On this issue, the numbers do not lie.
In the course of the election campaign, the coalition made a set of promises across Australia about road and bridge projects. There were 78 projects; only three were in Western Australia. That's not 10 per cent; that's not even five per cent. From the $220 million Regional Jobs and Investment Packages—a program designed to fund projects that address areas of high unemployment—WA was the only state to miss out altogether. Ten projects were selected; none were in Western Australia. That's not even five per cent; that's zero per cent. When WA was named one of two naval shipbuilding hubs, I thought that would give us a chance of something like half the work and maybe half the investment—certainly, that's what the WA Liberals would like you to think. In June, they took out a sequence of full-page ads in The West Australian about shipbuilding that said '50 per cent' in bold, white text on a bright-blue Liberal circle. But are we getting 50 per cent? No, not exactly. Of the $89 billion in defence shipbuilding work, WA is getting $3.5 billion. That's not half. In fact, as you might have guessed, it's less than 5 per cent.
You can come into this place with all the rhetorical flair that you like, with all of the spin and with all of the full-page ads in The West Australian, but no amount of bluster and no amount of advertising dollars can spin the truth into some kind of fairytale. When you look at the paltry investment by the Abbott-Turnbull government, the numbers tell the story. The numbers do not lie. In fact, the one measure in which we are overrepresented—in which we get more than our fair share in Western Australia—is in the numbers of Liberal and National party members that come to this place. That's the evil genius of the last four years: the coalition do next to nothing for WA, all the time relying on their sense of entitlement to represent our state. That strategy does not seem to be changing. The faith by those opposite in the power of cynical advertising and playing the blame game remains as strong as ever. They'll keep running ads in The West Australiansaying 'we're getting 50 per cent', they'll keep blaming a brand new Labor government for the combined failures of the Abbott-Turnbull federal government and the Barnett state government for what they've not delivered over the last four years.
I knew that the member for Tangney was going to speak today. I steeled myself to hear about his brilliant plan to bring back the disastrous and the pointless Roe 8 project. I was so looking forward to his description of the fantastic negotiations by which we clawed back the $1.2 billion for a series of important projects in both of our electorates. I was thinking that he might come in to talk about some innovation funding for this time machine that he clearly wants to build so that he can go back and change recent history. They say that there are millions of alternate universes. There will not be an alternate universe in which you can find Roe 8 making any sense—but he's welcome to keep looking.
I would much rather work collaboratively with the member for Tangney on something sensible to benefit our state and, indeed, to benefit the adjoining communities we represent. If there's a prospect of creating a City Deal that extends south of the river, I'd be glad to work with him on achieving support from the federal government for a light-rail corridor between Fremantle and Murdoch Central that would catalyse transport-oriented development and create jobs. People in Western Australia want to see their representatives working together, and I'd be very happy to do that. But, first things first: the Abbott-Turnbull government needs to change its game, it needs to stop neglecting WA, it needs to stop the spin, it needs to stop taking the people of Western Australia for fools and it needs to stop taking our state for granted.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (17:39): It's a pleasure to be able to speak on this motion. I must admit that, when I first saw it and saw that it was from the member for Cowan, I checked to see that it hadn't come out of a Monty Python skit or Yes, Prime Minister. It just bemused me. I must admit that I only heard the member for Fremantle's speech, because I was in the chair in the other chamber, but it was all motherhood statements and rhetoric. There was nothing about the specific claims they've made against us. There wasn't one mention of all the infrastructure that has been built.
Let's go back to 2007. Western Australia was promised $100 million a year by guess who? The federal Labor government under Kevin Rudd. It never came at all—not one cent of the $100 million per annum, as compensation for the GST, ever came. It disappeared into the ether. Again, don't listen to what Labor say; just watch what they do. There is no better example than ports and other infrastructure. They had six years to do all that, and where were they? They did nothing in Western Australia. All they gave us was a mining tax, which ruined our economy, and the carbon tax. But Labor conveniently forget all that.
We have from the member for Cowan a quick definition of neglect as not receiving proper attention and of being disregarded. The member for Cowan's motion goes on to accuse the government of failing to deliver key infrastructure funding in Western Australia. I'll just quickly remind you that there's an AFL event on tonight. It was the Abbott government that gave the West Coast Eagles $13 million for their infrastructure project at Lathlain in my electorate of Swan, with $10 million of it contributing to the $65 million building, and $3 million to the Wirrpanda Foundation—a bit of infrastructure that those on the other side forget.
It appears to me that the member for Cowan has neglected to read the news that this coalition government is building Western Australia's future by delivering the biggest infrastructure investment in Australia's history, so it is with great pleasure that I remind the member for Cowan and those on the other side of the chamber what we are doing in the great state of WA—and perhaps they can take notes for their WA state Labor colleagues. The coalition government is investing a record $75 billion in infrastructure funding and financing from 2017-18 to 2026-27 to get vital airport, road, and rail infrastructure projects underway across the country.
In my home state of WA alone the coalition is investing $6.8 billion in infrastructure, supporting jobs and growth across Australia's biggest state. In the 2016 budget WA was given $499 million GST top-up payments. Of that, $45 million was allocated to the Roe Highway and Berkshire Road grade separation within my electorate of Swan, which is now complete. The following year, in the 2016-17 budget, $490 million was allocated to build the Forrestfield Airport Link, all of which is in the electorate of Swan. The link will connect residents of Swan across Perth to the airport and CBD with three new stations: Forrestfield, Airport Central and Belmont. It's great to update the Chamber that construction is well underway, with support from the state Labor government.
A Commonwealth-state funding agreement will see the construction of another exciting project, a southbound on-ramp from Manning Road to Kwinana Freeway, finally going ahead. The project is $35 million, with a $28 million contribution from the federal government—not the state government—and $7 million from the state government. I would remind members, that Labor Senator Sue Lines spoke against the Manning Road on-ramp, which thousands of people in the Manning Road area want, and said, 'The member for Swan should take his eye off ridiculous infrastructure projects and concentrate on the people in his electorate', which I am doing. The response to the Manning Road on-ramp was enormous. I keep reminding the people who were so pleased to have it that Labor Senator Lines spoke and voted against it in the other chamber.
I welcome the Treasurer's 2017-18 budget that included funds for the grade separation of the Roe Highway and Kalamunda Road intersection and a once-in-a-generation upgrade of High Wycombe road and rail. This is a major investment in Swan, with the Roe-Kalamunda road being ranked No. 1 for crashes by Main Roads over the five years reporting period. The agreement sees our coalition government funding $68.8 million to enable the Roe Highway grade separation to proceed. I suggest the member for Cowan and those on the other side take note of what has been done by the federal coalition government in terms of infrastructure funding and that the member for Cowan also look at the two projects in her electorate and stop walking around with her eyes shut.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
50th Anniversary of ASEAN
Mr HILL (Bruce) (17:45): I 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.
On 8 August 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations was founded. Originally with just five members from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, it has now grown to 10 members, including Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam. As the most important multilateral institution in South-East Asia, it's appropriate that this House congratulates ASEAN on five decades of patient and effective work, promoting regional peace while advancing economic growth and social progress.
In 1967, South-East Asia was very different. There was mutual suspicion amongst states, enormous violence in Indochina and great power confrontation. South-East Asia today has been free of interstate conflict for decades.
A division having been called in the House of Repres en tatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:46 to 18:06
Mr HILL: South-East Asia today has been free of interstate conflict for decades and is among the fastest growing regions in the world. Collectively, ASEAN would be the sixth-largest nation and Australia's third-largest trading partner. In congratulating our friends and neighbours on stunning progress, including hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of poverty, these are not just pleasant words. Australia has a direct and profoundly important interest in the success of ASEAN and its member states. This is our neighbourhood. Stability, peace and prosperity matter enormously.
ASEAN, like any institution, has limitations. Some have criticised ASEAN and the ASEAN ways—norms of informality, consensus and non-conflict-based decision making—but there is wisdom in these methods to keep such diverse societies at the table. And ASEAN has proved to be an enduring institution, outlasting changes in governments, including momentous transitions. It's been said often that perhaps ASEAN's greatest achievement is what has not happened and what has been central in preventing conflict in South-East Asia between member states.
Last week, I attended a seminar reflecting on 50 years of ASEAN. It was said that at its core ASEAN is a trust machine, not necessarily a product machine. A colleague observed that, as with other multilateral institutions with diverse members, 'ASEAN wasn't designed for heaven, just to stop us going to hell'. That is true at its core, but the 'heaven' and 'hell' undersells ASEAN's import, achievements and potential.
Although I accept that the international environment is anarchic, humans have a capacity for violence, and real power matters. Indeed, it's fundamental. However, I also believe that significant aspects of relations between states and peoples result from historical and social constructs and that we can influence and shape this environment with ideas and dialogue and that institutions can have a positive effect. ASEAN has facilitated dialogue not only between member states but also their neighbours and the great powers through its sponsored fora. The resultant relationships and forums underpin ambitious economic initiatives such as the ASEAN economic community. ASEAN is also a forum to tackle mutual challenges, and other issues such as migration, environment, aviation, food security, communications and many others. Where consensus exists, ASEAN has bargained externally, even as one group—for example, in the 1970s airline dispute, where Australia was in the end forced to change our approach. I warmly congratulate ASEAN on 50 years of patient, effective work.
In closing, on Australia and ASEAN, I firmly believe that Australia must and will seek closer strategic alignment with our South-East Asian neighbours, bilaterally and via ASEAN. This alone will not guarantee our security, but it makes enormous, long-term, strategic sense for us all to deepen our cooperation, given our shared interests and the growing great-power uncertainty. Having listened for years to the debate about Australia in Asia, a lot of it seems, frankly, weird. This is where we are. It isn't as if one day we will wake up and suddenly be somewhere else, as though someone might tow us over to the Atlantic overnight. These are our neighbours. Geography is not destiny, but it is reality, so let's get with it.
In March 2018 the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit will be held in Sydney, and it must be more than just symbolic. There's been a criticism made over many years, including by our neighbours in quiet conversations, that Australia says fine words but that our real substantive interest in ASEAN and South-East Asia waxes and wanes. They say that despite these nice words we are at times hot and cold, sometimes here but sometimes elsewhere. In particular there is a criticism that we haven't put the diplomatic resources in a consistent way necessary to really deepen our engagement through all the various forums. So, to really take advantage of this summit, Australia must be prepared to commit to substantive, practical steps which provide greater support to collective ASEAN priorities. Our mutual understanding, relationships and trust must deepen and develop to the point where, perhaps, one day Australia would be a logical and natural candidate for membership of ASEAN without this being a big deal or a big fuss. One day I hope such a step would not seem strange to our people or to our neighbours.
In this motion I congratulate, both personally and on behalf of the parliament, ASEAN for 50 years of patient and effective work.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Claydon: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mrs SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (18:10): I, too, wish to congratulate the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on its 50th anniversary—50 years of evolution and progress. The Governor-General celebrated and hosted an event on 8 August in recognition of this auspicious occasion, which was attended by my friend and colleague foreign minister the Hon. Julie Bishop.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, was established 50 years ago in Bangkok, Thailand, with the signing of the ASEAN declaration by the founding fathers of ASEAN, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Now, ASEAN consists of 10 countries, including Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar. ASEAN has made significant contributions to delivering peace, security and cohesion in our region since its inception half a century ago. ASEAN fundamental principles include mutual respect for the independent sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations, renunciation of the threat or use of force and effective cooperation among themselves.
Myanmar has seen an evolutionary cultural shift where ASEAN principles are evident, helping to change the political landscape and replacing what was once chaotic civil unrest with energy, hope and possibilities for the future. Australia, I know, works particularly hard with all the ASEAN nations, but with the rebirth of democracy in Myanmar, additional financial assistance and nurture of development initiatives will be significantly enhanced. Extra education funding is aimed towards an educational shift. It is a difficult but essential task.
The International Women's Development Agency has pioneered a mentoring project. Just last week, six female Myanmar MPs came to our parliament. They were very impressed with the way children's democracy education took place in the House. They were inspired to take that idea home—amongst many other things—to help grow democracy in Myanmar. The model of close political mentoring and support is one that may, perhaps, be adopted by other nations within ASEAN parliaments.
I particularly thank the Akhaya Women from Myanmar, especially Htar Htar, as she has been the catalyst for this exercise in the empowerment of women. Jen Clark and Leonie Morgan from IWDA have also played a special part. I would like to thank the six MPs from Myanmar: Daw Khin Swe Lwin, Naw Chris Htun, Lway Nan Moe, Daw Nan Htwe, Nang Khin Saw and Daw Khin Saw Wai. They have come to a very strange land to learn, apply and grow their own democracy and political advocacy. This is all part of our participation in the ASEAN relationship.
The ASEAN alliance is important to Australia's strategic and economic interests due to its position at the geographical and diplomatic centre of our region. We are close partners dedicated to tackling regional challenges. Our 43-year standing relationship is robust and continues to strengthen. In 2014, Australia became a strategic partner, placing us at the top level of partnerships. There are biennial ASEAN-Australian leaders' summits. Australia strongly supports the East Asia Summit and actively engages in the ASEAN Regional Forum in the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus.
The Prime Minister will host the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit, planned for March next year, attended by all the leaders in the region in recognition of the political-level strengthening of our relationship with all member countries. This provides an unprecedented opportunity to advance our mutual security, economic interests and set frameworks of cooperation for the future. As we know, the economies of South-East Asia are the key drivers of global growth. With a five per cent annual increase across the region, there are undoubtedly prosperous times ahead.
Australia's $93 billion two-way trade with ASEAN has grown by over $25 billion in the last decade and now exceeds our trade with the United States and Japan. The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area and bilateral free trade areas with ASEAN partners provide greater certainty for Australian service suppliers and investors, with extensive tariff reductions for Australian goods' exporters. We provide significant bilateral investments. Our ASEAN and Mekong regional program supports economic integration, free trade, sustainable water resource management and human security issues like antitrafficking and safe labour migration in addition to health sector aid, particularly the antimalaria initiatives. Our aid is a reflection of our deep interest in a prosperous and stable South-East Asia.
ASEAN countries and its peoples are part of the fabric of Australian society with nearly one million Australians claiming ASEAN ancestry and at least 700,000 Australians speaking an ASEAN language. In 2016, 15 per cent of all international visitors to Australia and nearly 18 per cent of all international students in Australia were from ASEAN countries. We must continue to engage, embrace and work with our neighbouring countries to ensure peace, security and prosperity.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (18:15): I rise to support the motion on ASEAN moved by the member for Bruce, and I congratulate him on this initiative. This year marks 50 years since the Association of Southeast Asian Nations was founded. Since its inception, ASEAN's membership has grown and today it includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Australia's relationship with ASEAN dates back more than 40 years to 1974, when we became its very first dialogue partner—yet another groundbreaking, international initiative of the Whitlam government.
In the past 50 years, the world has seen a great deal of change in a number of areas—improved outcomes in health and education, a great many people lifted out of poverty, massive advancements in technology and changes to the pattern of human migration. Throughout these decades, ASEAN has promoted peace and stability in an extraordinarily large region, and it should be congratulated for this. The rewards of this effort can be seen in the region's economic growth. In the years from 2001 to 2014, ASEAN's combined GDP rose threefold to approximately $2.5 trillion. Today, ASEAN collectively is one of our largest trading partners and the importance of our strategic partnership with ASEAN cannot be understated.
It is a very simple fact that Australia must be engaged in this part of the world. To put it in context, ASEAN's combined population of more than 620 million is larger than the European Union or North America, and 65 per cent of this population is under 35 years old. What's more, ASEAN is home to a rising middle class, which has more and more money to spend and therefore contribute to the Australian national economy. This is particularly important, given the role that tourism plays. Tourism has been identified by Deloitte Access Economics as one of five supergrowth sectors. It supports more than one million jobs and generates nearly $100 billion in economic activity. The 2018 ASEAN-Australia Special Summit is the first of its kind and will provide an unprecedented opportunity to showcase our nation to the ASEAN members and dialogue partners. It is being held in Sydney.
As we continue to grow our relationship with ASEAN, it's clear tourism is one important beneficiary. Indeed, of Tourism Australia's 16 core markets, three of these—Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia—are part of ASEAN. We have been fortunate to see international visitors from these countries increasingly choose Australia as their tourist destination. For the year ending March 2017, the number of visitors to Australia from Singapore rose seven per cent, from Malaysia 11 per cent and from Indonesia 18 per cent—an excellent testimony to the relationship Australia has with the people of these nations.
We should also look to ASEAN for best practice when it comes to our shared challenges. The fact is there's much we can learn from each other. Urbanisation is one such example. I visited Singapore earlier this year to look at their urban policy. As a city state, Singapore is leading the world in many areas, and one of the areas is the rollout of high-speed broadband, where they actually used the Australian model as an example—except that they kept going with it and didn't abandon it for a third-rate copper network.
As the member for Grayndler, the fact is I'm very fortunate to represent an electorate that is a melting pot of multiculturalism. Our multiculturalism, language skills and relationship with the region can be a great source of not just social and cultural benefit but also benefit to our economy. More than 1.3 million Australian residents were either born in ASEAN countries or have South-East Asian ancestry. We all benefit from the fact that Australia is a dialogue partner with ASEAN. I look forward to seeing Australia deepen its collaboration in the coming years, and I congratulate ASEAN on this important celebration of 50 years.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:20): I begin my speech by refuting one of the comments that was made by the previous speaker. If he'd done any analysis of the size and concentration of the populations of Singapore and Australia, he would know how absurd it was to say that the delivery of a national broadband network or equivalent is not comparable between the two countries. I know it's a fantasy when you live in a world where money means nothing, it has no consequences, and you're prepared to spend other people's money to infinity, but it is not a practical or realistic way to do things.
Let's get past that. Let's talk about the issue at hand, which is to congratulate ASEAN on its 50th anniversary as an important part of regional stability and economic cooperation between some of the great countries in our South-East Asia region. I particularly congratulate its 10 members: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma-Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Every Australian has some affection with one or many of those countries because they have had the opportunity to be able to visit and enjoy the warm embrace that comes from those countries and their cultures.
When you look at the challenges that our region has faced since the creation of ASEAN, it has provided a regional framework of stability as well as economic opportunity for a country that seeks to grow economically like ours. But, being a passionate advocate for free trade, this is not a unilateral relationship. This is one built on the ideals of mutual prosperity and support, particularly in dealing with and tackling some of the great challenges we face as a region around promoting economic growth and opportunity to reduce levels of poverty across the region. That's in their interests and it's in ours.
By having a free and open economic community among South-East Asia nations, we help to contribute to that. We did that no better than by signing a free trade agreement in 2010 which has been the bedrock of our economic relationship since that time. The free trade agreement gives Australian exporters the opportunity to be able to export goods into the region at a desirable arrangement. But, equally, it makes sure that those economies integrate further into the Australian economy to the interests of everybody. Sometimes I'd like to see more opportunities in FTAs, like the embrace of service based liberalisation, but let's take the baseline where it is and say, 'That's fantastic,' and build on it and grow.
The consequences have been quite significant. Australia's two-way trade with ASEAN countries amounts to over $25 billion in the past decade and now exceeds our trade with the United States and Japan. When you think about the opportunity that has provided for Australian exporters in being able to leverage the potential to nearby neighbours who want to consume the best of what we as a country can produce, it should not be understated. The strength of the Australian economy has always been that we're able to produce more than we consume, but we need reliable trading partners to make sure that we can ingratiate ourselves and create opportunities, including export opportunities, for Australians so that people can enjoy the offerings of this great country.
Australia's relationship with ASEAN commenced in 1974. Our relationship is now in its 43rd year. In that time it has only grown deeper, particularly as a consequence of programs like the Colombo Plan, which enabled people from across ASEAN countries to come to Australia to learn, understand our systems of law practice and service based industries, and take that benefit, skill and knowledge of Australia back to their home country. We're enormously proud of its contribution to not just regional growth but our growth. Every opportunity that Australians have to embrace their region they take. One of the enduring legacies of the ASEAN relationship is built on a sense of mutual trust and understanding about the potential of growing together. What we celebrate on this 50th anniversary is the opportunity not just to congratulate ASEAN on its contribution to the region and to peace and stability amongst the countries that are members but also to celebrate the contribution that ASEAN makes to Australia. As a federal parliament, we make a commitment to continuing to support and contribute to their contribution to the growth of the region as well as to that of our great nation.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (18:25): I'm very happy to speak on this motion. It recognises and celebrates a momentous achievement. ASEAN has been one of the most durable and effective regional groups in the world since it was formed in 1967. This month marks a half century in which its members have navigated a successful passage through a difficult and volatile period. I'm grateful to the member for Bruce for bringing this matter forward for debate and recognition. He has a genuine interest and some not inconsiderable experience in the matter of Australia's engagement in our region.
It's incredible to reflect on the changes that have occurred over the 50 years since the five original members—Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines—signed the Bangkok Declaration and ASEAN was formed. As Nick Bisley, the professor of international relations at La Trobe University has observed:
ASEAN's formation was a product of its times. The group of poor and mostly newly independent countries needed to develop a much more positive approach to one another. Their immediate past had entailed cross-border contests, rivalry and insurgencies …
That context points to and highlights perhaps ASEAN's greatest achievement, namely the contribution it has made to the avoidance of regional conflict and the maintenance of national integrity and stability through a period of great change and considerable geopolitical pressure. This relative stability has, in turn, enabled some remarkable development outcomes. In 1967, for example, Singapore had a per capita GDP of $600. Now it is approximately $53,000, a higher level than we enjoy here in Australia. In 1967, Indonesia, the largest nation in ASEAN and the fifth most populous nation on earth, had a per capita GDP of only $56. Today, it is $3,600, Indonesia is the 16th-largest economy in the world and, by some estimates, it will be the fourth-largest by 2050.
The ASEAN nations account for nine per cent of the world's population and, by 2020, its economic scale will make it the fifth-largest economy in the world. As the motion states, ASEAN nations, taken together, already amount to our third-largest trading partner. As the economic and geopolitical realities of the 21st century—the Asian century—unfold, it is helpful to regard ASEAN as occupying, within the Asia-Pacific, a kind of bolstering and balancing middle ground between the emerging great powers of India and China.
Australia's relationship with ASEAN has always been of enormous significance, and that significance will continue to grow. We were the first country to be an official dialogue partner of ASEAN, a status now held by nine other countries. As such, we were able to benefit from participating in the ASEAN Regional Forum. We have, quite rightly, championed the significance of the East Asia Summit. Next year, Australia will have the honour and privilege of hosting the first ASEAN-Australia Special Summit, which will provide the opportunity to further consider how we will continue to support and interact with this regional group and how we will continue to develop our own identity as an Asia-Pacific nation.
On that issue, I was glad of the chance to participate in a roundtable discussion at the ANU in June with Professor Michael Wesley and others—and, again, I thank the prompting and good organisational work of the member for Bruce. Inevitably, part of the conversation turned on the question of Australia's place in our part in the world and the ways in which we relate to and interact with ASEAN nations. Rather than returning time and again to the perennial chestnut of whether Australia should or could ever be a member of ASEAN, there seemed to be some consensus that we should instead look to developing and strengthening our economic, cultural and diplomatic links in a way that would, in time, make our closer or even direct involvement with ASEAN seem like a natural step.
It is likely that ASEAN will be as important for its member nations and for its regional neighbours, including Australia, in the next 50 years as it has been in the half century just passed. But fulfilling that role will not be a matter of business as usual. There are new risks and opportunities before us. As Professor Bisley has written:
As great power rivalry returns, a divided ASEAN is finding its ability either to shape that rivalry or to carve out space for its members increasingly difficult. To do this it will need to have a much higher level of leadership than in the past to navigate a very difficult international environment. It will also need to be a great deal more adaptable and flexible than it has been in the past.
Unless it can deliver on shaping great power politics and playing a leadership role in the region, ASEAN will become less important both to its members and to Asia. This is an outcome that would make everyone in southeast Asia worse off.
I thank the member for Bruce for bringing this motion and all members who have taken part in the debate, which has been characterised by the respect we have for ASEAN and the value we place on its work to enable regional peace and cooperation.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:30): I too rise to congratulate the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, on its 50th anniversary. I commend the member for Bruce for bringing this motion to the House, through the Federation Chamber, and I commend all those members who have spoken on this significant motion reflecting a very significant milestone for this organisation.
Obviously, the ASEAN nations are our neighbours. It is important that the relationship between Australia and the ASEAN nations be good. The good news is that the relationship between us has perhaps never been in better shape. We are close partners in tackling regional challenges, and that is principally due to two things: our geographical place in being seen as a diplomatic centre for the region and the fact that we are the longest official observer nation to ASEAN. It has to be remembered that ASEAN was established by the five original member nations: Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and, I believe, Indonesia. Together they formed ASEAN as a bulwark against the spread of communism. People deride it now, but the domino effect, as it was called, was very much a reality.
The precursor to ASEAN being established was the SEATO, the South-East Asian Treaty Organisation. That was a security pact that Australia was very much involved in, along with the USA, the UK and, notably, Thailand and the Philippines. In fact, that treaty was signed in Manila. This new treaty was where five foundational members—non-communist countries—decided to come together and sign the treaty in 1967 in Bangkok. It was a different kind of security they were looking for, because they saw this domino effect: what happened in Cambodia, what happened in Laos, what happened in Vietnam and what threatened to happen in Indonesia. The threat of communism, therefore, was real. What they needed to do was meet that challenge of communism and do that through free enterprise, through the economy and through lifting people up in their nations.
There have been some great success stories out of that. Look at Singapore: under the leadership of Lee Kwan Yew that country went from a third world country to one of the most prosperous counties on planet earth. Look at Malaysia and what has been developed there in Kuala Lumpur today. Look too at the progress that has happened in countries like Thailand and the Philippines in recent times. These countries are very much emerging from a developing status and quickly going to first-world status, and many parts of those countries are already there.
It is very important we recognise what these nations, collectively, have achieved. Other nations that have come into the fold, including Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Brunei round out what is ASEAN today. Again, all of those countries, even the ones which purport to have a socialist or communist basis for government, are pursuing free market principles that have led to their countries rising in prosperity. We have enabled that as well, with the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area and the bilateral agreements that we've had with our ASEAN partners, including Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia, and negotiations currently under way with Indonesia. It prospers our country; it prospers their countries. We also look to assist their countries in other security areas: anti-trafficking, safe labour migration, human security issues. It is in our interest to ensure that ASEAN nations prosper. We congratulate them on this 50th anniversary.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (18:35): I too thank the member for Bruce for moving this very worthy motion. The 50th anniversary of the Bangkok Declaration and the establishment of ASEAN is truly an event that deserves the recognition of the Australian parliament. ASEAN has been one of the world's most successful multilateral organisations over this period. Tasked with promoting regional peace and stability between the nations of South-East Asia, the results speak for themselves. In one of the most religiously diverse regions in the world, which is home to millions of Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus living side by side, confronting legacies of conflicts from colonialism to the fallout of the Second World War and as a scene for geostrategic jostling by great powers, South-East Asia has faced significant challenges over the last 50 years. Yet, through it all, ASEAN has been extraordinarily successful at delivering peace and stability throughout the region.
This stability has enabled extraordinary economic growth in a region that today has a collective population of around 620 million people and a GDP of around US$2.5 trillion—a region that, when considered collectively, justifies being contemplated on the same plane as China and India as a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific. Indeed ASEAN is a regional grouping that should have a far larger place in the Australian political imagination. ASEAN is central to Australia's economic, strategic and foreign policy aspirations. Considered collectively, ASEAN is Australia's second or third largest trading partner, with current two-way trade surpassing $100 billion annually since 2014, which is more than our trade with Japan, the EU or the US.
Moreover, as a collection of smaller nations in a region of rapidly changing geostrategic interests, we have many strategic and foreign policy interests in common. Like the member states of ASEAN, as a mid-sized trading nation, Australia has a strong interest in the maintenance of a rules based international system. As a neighbour in South-East Asia, Australia has a shared interest in the maintenance of a multilateral, rules based approach to issues in our own backyard, which are as varied as maritime cooperation, public health, human trafficking, transnational crime and terrorism. To this end, Australia would do well to work harder to buttress the work of ASEAN in these areas and, in enmeshing our own international efforts with those of our ASEAN nations, consult and cooperate with our partners in ASEAN.
As other speakers have discussed in this debate, aspiring to membership of ASEAN has been advocated by some in Australia, including former Prime Minister Paul Keating. Even absent this explicit ambition, my view is that engagement with ASEAN and ASEAN nations ought to be the highest priority of Australian foreign policy. Not only does Australia share many common interests with our ASEAN neighbours; we're also more likely to be able to shape the views and actions of great nations outside South-East Asia, if we are seen as an effective and expert partner within our own region. While it is true that Australia was ASEAN's first dialogue partner and that we have since established an ASEAN-Australia Strategic Partnership, all too often we have failed to sufficiently focus our efforts and resources in a way that we need to in order to be an effective and expert partner to our neighbours in South-East Asia.
Despite decades of discussion about the important of ASEAN, we still do not show enough interest as a nation in learning about our region. While over 123,000 South-East Asians are currently studying in Australia, the number of Australians studying in South-East Asia is a tiny fraction of this number. Depressingly, it is well-chronicled that the number of Australians studying South-East Asian languages like Bahasa Indonesia, Tagalog and Vietnamese is vanishingly small and shrinking by the year. So, too, are we failing to invest in the next generation of academic experts in the culture, history and politics of South-East Asia that we need to inform our engagement in the region.
Other nations outside ASEAN with similar interests to Australia, like South Korea, are making a much better fist of doing what is necessary to marshal national resources towards engaging with ASEAN. Given this, this motion's call to encourage the government to place the highest priority on the 2018 ASEAN-Australia Special Summit, to reaffirm and strengthen Australia's strategic partnership with ASEAN and to identify practical actions for Australia to deepen its collaboration in support of ASEAN's future success is crucial.
Australia's geo-strategic environment and our place in the global economy are changing rapidly. The great Australian complacency that we have all too often fallen into in the past will not suffice in the more challenging international context that confronts us in the future. To this end, we could all learn a thing or two from the success that ASEAN has had in shaping the international environment of its nation states over the past 50 years. It's a lesson to the rest of the world in what determined, sustained and creative foreign policy can achieve over the long term.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (18:40): I want to congratulate the member for Bruce for putting forward this motion. About two months ago, I had the great pleasure of spending a morning with the member for Bruce, as well as the member for Bass, who's just joined us. We had an interesting conversation at the Australian National University—that great national institution here in Canberra—on this very issue of the future of ASEAN: where do we go from here, what role will ASEAN play in the future and what is the relationship between Australia and ASEAN? We have had this connection for a long time, but what is the future of that relationship for the next 50 years?
I want to use this opportunity to again thank Professor Michael Wesley as well as Professor John Blaxland, who facilitated the workshop. The workshop was useful because we had a number of brains around the room with different expertise and experience in the various ASEAN countries over many years and in a range of different spheres: economic, political, social and cultural. It was a really worthwhile conversation, and I commend the member for Bruce for organising it. Given we are today honouring the 50th anniversary of ASEAN and its achievements, something that was born of peace and cooperation at a particularly tense time in the region, now, 50 years on, what do we want to achieve with ASEAN? As I said, what role will it play in the region? What role will Australia play in its interconnection with ASEAN? What future do we see for this multilateral body?
I am very keen for us to have a stronger and deeper engagement with ASEAN and for ASEAN, within itself, to have a stronger and deeper engagement. But I ask, when we are having this conversation, that we are truly committed to deepening and strengthening our relationship with ASEAN. As someone who used to be a diplomat in foreign affairs, in a life before this one—I had my small business before and prior to that I was in the foreign service—I saw so many activities where we were engaged in deepening the relationship with Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand. Remember the tiger economies of the mid-to-late nineties, up until the crash? Indonesia was the future for Australia. There was a huge amount of investment and economic and cultural activity. There were trade missions and ministerial visits and such a flurry of activity, and then it was gone. There's this waxing and waning of interest in ASEAN, as there is for the subcontinent, particularly India.
In calling for a deeper and stronger relationship with those countries in ASEAN—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam—we need to acknowledge the differences there, the different dynamics and the different stages of development amongst those countries, but also, if we are to deepen the relationship, please, let's make it sustained. As someone who's been in this space for more than 20 years, I have seen this flurry of activity and excitement—we'll deepen the relationship with Indonesia, India, Singapore, Vietnam and Thailand. Missions go over, economic and banking agreements are signed, social and cultural organisations go over, one or two years pass, and then there's nothing. I ask that, for the next 50 years of our relationship with ASEAN, we be deeply committed to a stronger and deeper engagement at every level, that we sustain that commitment to a stronger and deeper engagement at every level—that we don't just say, 'This is a good thing,' on the 50th anniversary, and then forget about it in a few days time—and that we actually commit to this.
As so many of my colleagues have said, this region is significant in so many ways: population, culture, development opportunities. It's the world's sixth largest economic region and one of our great and key trading partners. There is so much opportunity in this region. I imagine that most of the people here have been to parts—if not all—of it, and there are so many opportunities for not only Australia but also each country in ASEAN. All I ask is that we commit to stronger and deeper engagement and collaboration with those countries and, when we make that commitment, that we sustain that commitment—that we don't see the waxing and waning of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s—and that it's deep, meaningful, strong and sustained.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (18:46): I also thank the member for Bruce for introducing this motion today, and I'm very pleased to speak on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, which was established in 1967 in Bangkok. The founding nations of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand together made the ASEAN declaration 50 years ago. Since that time, more nations of the region have joined ASEAN: Brunei Darussalam in 1984, Vietnam in 1995, Laos—or Myanmar—in 1997 and Cambodia in 1999. It says something about this regional grouping of nations that has expanded in this manner over its development and is now made up of the ASEAN 10 nations.
The ASEAN Declaration of 1967 is an eloquent statement of the aims of the association that have at their heart the important statecraft of cooperation, collaboration and mutual assistance—a means of working together patiently and respectfully of each nation's sovereignty to achieve economic, social, educational and cultural development and regional peace and stability and therefore prosperity. In essence, these nations promised to help and support each other for their mutual benefit and the prosperity of their people.
When these steps were first taken 50 years ago, many doubted that ASEAN would last, and few thought it might've been driving international discussions on the progress and development of South-East Asia 50 years later. We should remember the circumstances in which ASEAN was born. Two years earlier, Singapore and Malaysia had split into separate nations. Indonesia was recovering from the deep unrest and violence that triggered the fall of Sukarno. Konfrontasi had come to an end after much pain and, indeed, the peace treaty brought about its end to pave the way for the creation of ASEAN.
During its 50 years, ASEAN has sought out the participation of and discussion with other Asia-Pacific states. Its consultative approach has seen ASEAN Plus Three to include China, Japan and South Korea, which then developed into ASEAN Plus Six to include India, New Zealand and Australia.
ASEAN, as you know, is very important to Western Australia. We have the desert at our back, the vast Indian Ocean before us and—as is widely claimed—the most isolated capital city in the world, Perth, but in fact we're the most connected Australian capital city. More than 60 per cent of the world's population lives directly to our north, in arguably the most dynamic region on earth, and 65 per cent of the ASEAN population is under 30 and drives—and will continue to drive—this dynamism. So, far from being isolated, Perth is in fact the gateway to ASEAN and the Indo-Pacific. This is no secret in WA, with businesses actively building relationships throughout the region and with ASEAN nations for many decades. They are relationships that create opportunities in trade and opportunities for closer engagement with our regional neighbours.
Our new Labor state government is helping drive these relationships by developing an Asian engagement strategy and appointing the first Western Australian Minister for Asian Engagement, the Hon. Bill Johnston. Closer to Perth than Canberra, civil society throughout the region discuss—as we do here—how Australia, Indonesia and all ASEAN nations might work together in policy development so that, together, we can meet the challenges of the region: nutrition, infrastructure, education, security, energy security, pollution and the effects of climate change. Our common concerns and common goals bring us together, and ASEAN can take credit for much of this cooperation.
Before I came here I established and was the chief operating officer of the Perth USAsia Centre, a think tank dedicated to strengthening relationships and strategic thinking between Australia, the Indo-Pacific and the USA. Of course ASEAN is very much a part of that. It is a very important part of strengthening the relationships and thinking on geopolitical issues that affect the region.
I was fortunate in September 2015 to help host a visit by the sixth President of Indonesia, Professor Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, to Perth to speak at the In the Zone conference. When asked how Indonesia and Australia could best work together in the region, Dr Yudhoyono said that he believed that our best means and avenue of cooperation is to work enthusiastically together to strengthen Australia's engagement with ASEAN and ASEAN nations in policy development, education and culture exchange across government, academia and civil society. And this we will see in the 2018 ASEAN-Australia Special Summit in Sydney.
I urge the government to recognise the Perth USAsia Centre's good work. It was originally funded by the Labor Gillard government and has had bipartisan support since its inception. I know its funding is soon to expire, and it is on the desks of ministers in this government. I urge the government to prioritise this in their in-trays and make sure they consider refunding the Perth USAsia Centre so that it might continue to strengthen relationships and strategic thinking across ASEAN and the Indo-Pacific.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Workplace Relations
Ms KEAY (Braddon) (18:51): I 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;
(3) calls on Government Members and Senators to stand with Labor to protect low paid workers take home pay; and
(4) supports Labor's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, to amend the Fair Work Act 2009.
I want to give a personal story about the impact that cuts to penalty rates have had on women and I also want to demonstrate to those opposite who believe in economics over everything else that these cuts are bad for communities. They are bad for regional communities in particular and local economies. They are bad for small business, particularly those in regional Australia.
Katelyn works in retail on Sundays and she will lose about $10 for the day. That might not seem like a lot to many Australians and working Australians, but for her it is a lot of money. Katelyn is saving every cent she has to put towards finding stable accommodation. She cannot pick up any more hours because she is also a student. She works with two other women in the shop on a Sunday. There's no capacity at all to put on any extra shifts or any other employees. The argument that cutting penalty rates will create more jobs is nothing but a fallacy.
As a member of the Australian Jobs Taskforce, Labor's caucus committee, I have spoken to many regional chambers of commerce. We talk to people on the ground from all sectors of society about jobs—the barriers to creating and obtaining jobs, how we grow jobs and how we may solve the systemic failures of our labour market. The fallacy of jobs being created or more work being provided from these cuts was confirmed by the business representatives who I and the task force have spoken to. Many small business operators suggested that, as small business owners generally pay themselves a wage, they will pocket the savings from these penalty rate cuts themselves. How could you blame them for that?
People like Katelyn who are on low wages—and predominantly those in the retail sector are women—spend every cent they have and they spend it locally. The impact of these cuts on regional Australia is staggering. According to the McKell Institute, in my electorate nearly $10 million of lost income will hurt small businesses. People will spend less. They will have reduced confidence to spend, particularly those in the sectors where they now feel they are in jeopardy of the same cuts happening to them, such as in clubs and hairdressers. Some $6½ million of this $10 million of lost income is from retail workers in my electorate.
With the casualisation of work and the increase in insecure work, the positive balance has shifted away from many in our society to just a few. The impacts on society are enormous, and governments should not underestimate these. These figures assume that most employers are larger businesses that are not locally owned, and this is the case in my electorate, which is a regional electorate. This means that any labour savings from these cuts will be moved to the larger cities, not reinvested in regional areas. But if you look at the macroeconomics, weekend penalty rates contribute over $14 billion to the annual income of Australian employees, or 2½ per cent of the total economy. For those sectors that are weekend intensive, such as retail, five per cent of wages from these cuts will be lost.
Women like Katelyn will be impacted the hardest. Lisa is a mum in her 40s living in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. She's a single mum with two teenage daughters. She works in retail and works Sundays. She is now feeling more financial pressure to make ends meet. The amount of money that she will lose from her take-home pay is equivalent to her property rates and charges. She is competing with younger retail workers for shifts and she doesn't have the skills to move on into other sectors. These cuts will increase inequality, and that's according to not just to Labor but over 75 Australian professionals working in economics and related disciplines.
Economic research indicates that overall business activity in retail and hospitality depends on the level of consumer expenditure on these services. By undermining incomes for a group of workers, it will marginally reduce aggregated disposable income. So there we are, again—back at the beginning. So it is clear. If you support women, you will stand with Labor, stand up for women in your community, support our private members' bill and protect the take-home pay of women who need your support more than most.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hastie ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr HART (Bass) (18:56): Yes, I second the motion. I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Braddon. Penalty rates play an important part in sustaining those in insecure work, the low paid and workers in hospitality and retail. But also, in a climate of low wages growth, penalty rates play a part in sustaining communities, particularly those communities where underemployment is an increasing problem.
It was often said during the mining boom that Australia suffered from a two-speed economy. Now, commentators are forced to confront the fact that there is rising inequality within the Australian community, particularly when considering the ability of some within our community to engage with and participate in paid work. There are those who are fortunate enough to be in secure work. They are well paid. For them, penalty rates are irrelevant. These are the people who benefit from tax cuts delivered by this government, whilst low-paid workers are threatened with cuts to their wages. While some, like the Treasurer and certain newspaper commentators, place an issue whether there is rising inequality, there appears to be a consensus that there is a significant portion of the Australian workforce facing a reduction in standards of living. This may be from insecure work, the reduction in hours of work, unemployment or underemployment or, whilst fully employed, the rising cost of living not keeping pace with wages growth.
I have spoken in the House recently about the importance of higher education in delivering high-paid jobs for graduates and about the effect on the economy which adds employment as a result of additional graduates taking up employment. The evidence suggests that increased educational attainment of itself improves economic prospects of not only graduates but also other workers within the economy. Nevertheless, the problem is that regional Australia, in particular Northern Tasmania, has lower educational attainment. It has lower educational attainment, fewer graduates, lower productivity and higher unemployment and underemployment.
With investment in the University of Tasmania transformation project, the aim is to transform that outlook over the next 10 years or more. In the meantime, our focus needs to be on jobs and wages growth, which is at historically low levels. The problem of low wages growth is that this is a constraint upon growth, particularly growth in consumer demand. The often-made assumption is that as a consequence of a reduction in penalty rates there will be additional employment which will facilitate the transfer of unemployed to the rank of the employed. This assumption is not supported by evidence. It's equally likely, indeed probable, that a rational employer will simply require an existing workforce to work additional hours. In other words, the employer takes the benefits of a reduction in costs and the employee either works additional hours to sustain their income or receives a reduction in income as a consequence of the reduction of the Sunday rate.
The financial consequences for regional communities are identified in the member's motion. Lower consumption affects all within the small communities that I serve, from the supermarket to the cafe. Discretionary expenditure is minimised and businesses subsist instead of thriving. Low-paid workers tend to expend most of their income consumption, with little put aside for investment or saving. This presents an immediate issue with respect to demand for services in small communities, particularly if there is a large workforce with a reduced income. I've previously addressed this chamber about the secondary effects within regional communities in northern Tasmania arising from the failure of Gunns Limited, in particular about the loss of jobs within the retail and service industries that followed some months after the loss of contracting, harvesting and transport jobs within the timber industry. This ultimately sees communities hollowed out, as the effect of job losses cascades through a community.
One of my first tasks, as an endorsed candidate, was to attend a forum that was addressed by retail workers. They explained the importance of penalty rates to their weekly or fortnightly budget. I have no doubt that these personal stories accurately described the extent to which real families struggle to make ends meet. These stories emphasised the extent to which penalty rates on a Sunday, sometimes on a fortnightly roster, mean that a child can attend the movies, participate in sport or go on a school excursion. These activities are only possible, I'm told time and time again, through the income received from those hours worked on a Sunday. Many university students have confirmed to me that their studies were only made possible by the fact that penalty rates earned on a Sunday provided them with the income to be able to devote time to study as well as support themselves. I commend the motion to the Chamber.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (19:01): I rise in this place today to support the motion put forward by the member for Braddon and to state unequivocally Labor's support for penalty rates and the protection of take-home pay. And doesn't that say it all! Those on the other side of this chamber are so gutless that they won't get up and defend the decision that they have taken which will affect over 700,000 people in this country. The member for Petrie sits in this chamber, too lazy to get up and speak on this motion. The member for Petrie—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The member for Oxley will resume his seat.
Mr Howarth: Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order goes to reflecting on members—calling us gutless. The fact is that I've already spoken on penalty rates—if you want to look it up.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Oxley will continue and he will refrain from casting aspersions on other members of the Chamber.
Mr DICK: What I will say, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that it's members like the member for Petrie who are too gutless to get up and speak on this motion today. That is a statement of fact. If he really believed in supporting the cutting of penalty rates of over 10,000 people in his electorate he would get up and defend it. But, no; he takes the coward's way out and doesn't defend the decision that they've made. This is impacting on thousands of people: 10,600 people in my electorate and over 10,000 people in the member for Petrie's electorate. He's so arrogant that he thinks it's okay and that he doesn't have to defend this decision. Well, every single day we are going to go out and tell members of the public exactly what this government is up to. I may add that this whole debate is now under question, because we now have allegations around the Deputy Prime Minister and his vote being tainted. So, whilst we saw a one-seat majority government deliver a slashing of 700,000 people's pay, we now question that—but that's for another day to discuss.
Workers in my electorate will lose up to $77 a week. Retail is the third biggest industry in my community, employing 6,976 local workers with a further 3,612 workers employed in the food and hospitality sector. Earlier this year I was joined by the member for Bendigo and shadow assistant minister for workplace relations at a community penalty rates forum in Goodna in my electorate of Oxley. We were joined by dozens of workers who voiced their frustration and disappointment with the LNP government in supporting the decision to cut penalty rates. Not once do those opposite get up and apologise for slashing the salaries of workers in my electorate. Not once do they put forward any arguments about why they think it is appropriate to give the largest pay cut since the Great Depression.
At the forum we heard from people like Donna, who has fought tooth and nail to put food on the table only to be given a kick in the guts by this government cutting her weekly wage. These are the stories of the real people. I can understand members of the government who are living in denial and too busy fighting amongst each other. This government is more like an episode of The Hunger Games, ripping each other apart, undermining each other and worrying about who's going to lead their party whilst they actually deliver a pay cut.
My community does not deserve this. The people of Australia, the working men and women who go to work on a Sunday, deserve the pay that they get now, not a pay cut like government members, such as the member for Petrie, are delivering them. They deserve an explanation as to why their salary is being cut. The member for Petrie is in denial, Deputy Speaker, just like other members of the government, who are so arrogant that they won't even enter this debate today. They won't rise on their feet to defend the decision. In my words that's gutless. It's gutless because they have taken the decision that is impacting on their own communities. Look, they may have reasons as to why they have done that, but I'm yet to hear a genuine reason as to why they want to cut the take-home pay of almost 700,000 workers.
What sticks in my craw the most? What is most insulting? Let's rewind what's happened. What happened the day after these pay cuts came in? They gave a millionaire a tax cut of $16,400. Workers in my electorate in places like Redbank and Redbank Plains who work in retail and hospitality got a pay cut, while millionaires living on the North Shore got a tax cut of $16,400. How on earth is that fair? How on earth can members of the government look anyone in the eye in the community and say, 'We've got your back.' They don't. They've given up on working and middle class Australians—time and time again. They've given up on women. They've given up on young people. They've given up on people working in the retail, hospitality and pharmacy industries. Well, Bill Shorten and Labor have not given up on workers. I will not give up on workers in my electorate. I will fight these pay cuts every single day until the next election. (Time expired)
Ms HUSAR (Lindsay) (19:07): It's a shame that the member for Petrie didn't take the opportunity to get on the speaking list. In fact, no-one in the government has put their name on this speaking list to talk about this very, very important subject. I follow in the member for Oxley's footsteps to add my support to the member for Braddon's motion. The retail trades industry is the second largest employment category in Australia. It employs 1.2 million people, or one in nine Australians. If you did the maths here in this chamber, that would be almost two of us. Fifty-two per cent of those workers in that industry have no post-school qualification. When it comes to my electorate of Lindsay, under the 2011 census there were over 12,000 people employed under the retail trades award. Now, that was under the 2011 census. Unfortunately, because of the absolute stuff-up of the census, we don't have a new figure.
The penalty rate cuts are just another milestone in this government's cruel attempts to hurt workers. These people need penalty rates to make ends meet. Every cent counts for most people in my community and most of the households around this country. The government has effectively delivered a $77 a week pay cut. As the member for Oxley said, something like this has not been seen since the Great Depression. For the government this is a business decision; but for most people in my electorate this decision is personal. Once again, the government put the low-paid workers in the firing line—people in our country who can least afford it. Pay and conditions aren't supposed to go backwards. Twelve thousand people in my community work in industries affected by the cuts—those in retail, food and hospitality.
What's even more worrying, as the member for Braddon pointed out, is that women will bear the brunt of these devastating cuts. Member for Petrie, where are you on this? More than 70 per cent of part-time workers are women. Women are most likely to be working on weekends and covering public holiday shifts. Cutting the pay of these workers in these industries is the worst thing they can do to widen the gender pay gap, which the government talks so much about wanting to close. We know when local workers have less money to spend that that hurts our local economy as well. This will affect small businesses. Forty-eight million dollars a year will not be spent in local retail shops and restaurants over the next year.
The Turnbull government has absolutely no idea about how things are for ordinary people. They just keep looking out for the big end of town and trust it will just trickle down. Well, I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, that is not the plan for most of the businesses in my electorate. Last week, I met with a group of hairdressers, all female—females, you know the other half of the country that exists!—and all aged from 20 to 40 years of age. They all work long hours, they stand on their feet, they deal with chemicals, and they have to go through a rigorous apprenticeship and training course to become our lowest-paid tradespeople. They are deeply concerned, and they're concerned because their penalty rates make a difference to how they live. After they go through the rigorous training to become a fully qualified hairdresser, they are still the lowest-paid tradespeople. They are going to face a pay cut as a result of this government. They are worried about how they will put fuel into their car, how they will get themselves to and from work and how they will manage their already very responsible spending habits.
This is a government which would rather see big business with more money in a trickle-down economy and millionaire tax cuts than hardworking hairdressers with penalty rates. This is the real world, Mr Turnbull, and these are real people you are affecting, facing a—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay—
Ms HUSAR: Prime Minister—I withdraw. This is the real world, Prime Minister! And these are real people facing a real wage cut. I just wish that he would wake up.
At a time when wages growth is stagnant—it shouldn't even be called wages growth because how can it grow if it's stagnant? There is no money. The cost of living pressures are rising. In my electorate, we already face a three per cent higher cost of living than other people in the Sydney area because there are no jobs. There is one job for every 200 residents, and most people have to commute to and from work. Not only will they lose pay cuts, but they can also get a 20 per cent rise in their electricity prices—thanks to the New South Wales Liberal government for selling all of our assets—and, now they're going to pay an extra $9 a day in tolls. You add all of those real wage cuts. They will not be going back into those households to pay high rents, incredibly high mortgages or put their children through school, after-school activities or sport.
I am absolutely proud to stand here as a member of the Labor Party and stand up for every single person in the country who relies on penalty rates, including those people who you represent, member for Petrie, because, obviously, the government have not, and they will not, come in here to defend those people who rely on them. A Shorten Labor government will reverse these pay cuts and make sure it cannot happen again. Labor's legislation will reverse this recent decision to cut penalty rates and change the law to protect the overall take-home pay of working Australians, and it is a shame that we don't see this Prime Minister as committed to looking after the workers and protecting their jobs and their pay as he is for his own.
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (19:12): Can I congratulate the member for Braddon for bringing this private member's bill to this parliament. We know that, on 23 February this year, the Fair Work Commission made a decision to reduce Sunday and public holiday penalty rates. The ACTU estimates that these workers will lose up to $6,000 per year as a result of that decision. According to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, some 500,000 workers in Australia rely on penalty rates—I think that is the key.
These cuts to penalty rates will hurt families, hurt young people, hurt older Australians, hurt women and hurt people from a non-English-speaking background. They will affect at least 1.2 million people. They will hit the most powerless—their work is not valued. The effect on the economy will be a disaster, as this motion outlines, and families will struggle. We call, as the motion does, on the government to protect take-home pay rates. According to the Australian Work and Life Index, 30 per cent of workers work unsocial hours, 32.2 of workers work weekends, and 18.9 per cent of workers work evenings after 9 pm regularly. That is an important thing to understand.
As has been pointed out, penalty rates will hurt women. Fifty-seven per cent of hospitality workers are women; 62 per cent of retail workers are women; and 85 per cent of pharmaceutical, cosmetic and toiletry goods retail employees are women. They are more likely to be on awards and they are more likely to work part-time, and we already earn less than men do, with 39.3 per cent of women relying on penalty rates compared to 31.5 per cent of men. Cutting penalty rates will only make the gender pay gap worse.
Penalty rates will disastrously affect young people because 59.4 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds receive and rely on penalty rates, and 42 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds receive penalty rates. Penalty rates is an important issue for older Australians. Whilst young people are greater recipients of penalty rates, families and older people are more likely to rely on them entirely, with 45.3 per cent of 55- to 64-year-old who receive penalty rates relying on them. Cleaners are going to be really badly affected. Most cleaners—in fact, 33 per cent of commercial cleaners and 24 per cent of domestic cleaners—are from non-English-speaking countries, compared to 16.7 per cent for all occupations. Around four in every 10 cleaners are born overseas.
When you look at those statistics, and recognising what the members from the Labor Party have contributed, it says to me very clearly that this government does not understand empathy or have any empathy for inequality. The Treasurer scoffs, saying there's no such thing as inequality. Obviously, there is not an understanding of that, or this disastrous piece of legislation in relation to penalty rates would not have been brought into this House. The member for Braddon and other members who have spoken understand these issues. As you can hear, they have an understanding of these issues from the people whom we represent. They have an understanding of these issues from the people that we know. They understand these issues because of our life experiences. And I refuse to believe that there are not people on the other side who also think that this is unfair, people who also think and understand that this is going to affect people in a real way, in a way where they will struggle to put food on the table and pay their utility bills. But, like lambs, they just follow on and do as they're told.
There are so many thing coming into the parliament that are bad for this country. It is not who we are. We are a country about fairness. We are a country of egalitarian beliefs. We are a country of equity and belief in equity. The things that this government is bringing in, including the citizenship debate that was concluded today in the House of Representatives, say very clearly that there is no care and no empathy for what Australia stands for, and that's egalitarian values.
Ms LAMB (Longman) (19:17): I thank the member for Braddon for raising this incredibly important issue in this parliament. Workers are the heart and soul of our country. On 1 July, what did we see? We saw a government cut the take-home pay of hundreds and thousands of workers. Today, as it has done every single other day, our party stands in solidarity with workers to condemn the government's changes to the Fair Work Act, because their changes are anything but fair. I note there are eight members of parliament in the chamber right now—seven are speaking and one is silent.
How can it be fair that workers who have to miss out on countless weekends, family events, barbecues, birthdays, going to church on Sundays—doing things like that—lose the little compensation they receive for working on Sundays? How is that fair? How could it be fair that a government's cuts to penalty rates will further widen the gender pay gap, which, in 2017, really should have been dealt with by now? This cruel decision will have a disproportionate effect on women. Women make up 54 per cent of the workforce in fast food and 55 per cent in general retail. They make up 77 per cent of workers in the pharmacy industry award, and in the hair and beauty industry award—where the government has refused to rule out cuts—they account for 87 per cent of the workforce. As the member for Lindsay noted, there were a number of hairdressers in the House here last week, and they spoke very, very candidly and openly about what a pay cut would mean to them. It is absolutely shameful.
It is obvious that thousands more women than men will be affected by these penalty rate cuts. These are thousands of women who rely on their penalty rates to meet their household expenses. They might use the extra income to pay the rent and feed their families. They have had their take-home pay cut by this cruel and out-of-touch government. I am just astonished—I really am—because, as I said, 2 July this year, the first day that workers saw a cut to the penalty rates, was exactly one year since Prime Minister Turnbull and his government won the 2016 election—and since then they've done nothing. They have done nothing to support Australia's most vulnerable. They've done nothing to create jobs and nothing to protect Medicare. The only thing they've done in government is nothing but a cheap and cowardly attack on workers in this country.
This is a government that stands for the rich and for big business. They turn their backs on ordinary Australians. It's a government that gives big businesses a huge tax cut that leaves millionaires $16,400 better off. That is some women's wages for the whole year, and that's what they gave to millionaires as a tax cut. But, you know, they know this is wrong. That's why there's nobody on the opposite side speaking. Like I said, seven members on this side—every single one of us got up to speak—and on the other side, absolute silence. I see the member for Petrie sitting opposite from me. He's actually my electorate boundary neighbour.
Mr Howarth: I've already spoken on this.
Ms LAMB: Well, get up and do it again, member for Petrie. Get up and talk to us about that. Do you know why he won't do it? The reason he will not get up is that he cannot defend a cruel and indefensible action. He cannot stand up and defend cutting people's wages. He was elected to stand up for his constituents in places like Rothwell and Deception Bay. That's what he was elected to do, to stand up for the workers, and he has failed them. If this government wanted to stand up for Australian citizens, they would do what citizens have been calling on them to do since the Fair Work Ombudsman handed down their decision in February: they would listen. They would listen to hardworking Australians. They would protect their pay and would protect their conditions, and every single member of the government that stands up for a constituent in their electorate would stand up and fight against any attack on pay and conditions.
Mr Howarth: I spoke on it last time.
Ms Husar: So did we—four times!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! If you do not want this debate to finish now, there will be silence.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (19:22): I've got a question: why is this government going after the most vulnerable in Australian society? What is the collective psychosis of this government that they have to go after the most vulnerable people in Australian society? They've already undertaken this massive austerity program—and it is an austerity program, but they're too scared to actually call it that. They've targeted the most vulnerable—pensioners, the disabled and students—with these false robo-debts, 40 per cent of which were actually incorrect. They've targeted these people, and now we've got these cuts to penalty rates targeting working class people who just want to make ends meet and put food on the table. As the member for Barton and the member for Longman have said, they're targeting specific cohorts within our society: women, the disadvantaged, migrants and people who don't have tertiary education. They're going about it in a way which is very, very upsetting to so many people and upsetting to us on this side.
We want to repair the budget—of course we do; we don't want to have a deficit—but our budget repair is about fairness. Their decision to repair the budget is all about unfairness—it's all about targeting the most vulnerable, to collect that money from the people who are the least able to defend themselves and stand up for themselves. I tell you what, we're here defending them; that's why we're here. We're here because we're standing up for the most vulnerable people in Australian society. We're standing up for pensioners, we're standing up for students, we're standing up for the working class, we're standing up for women who work for their families, and we're standing up for migrants, who are working in this country just to make ends meet to give their children and grandchildren a better life. That's why we're here.
I have to say that it goes beyond just going after the most vulnerable with Centrelink debts, 40 per cent of which were wrong. It's actually obscene—to all of us, it's is obscene—when they're giving $65 billion to corporate Australia in tax cuts, while someone who's on $60,000 or 70,000 a year has to pay more tax. It is actually obscene to go after the poor, the vulnerable, the disadvantaged, pensioners, students, the disabled, working women, single mums, people who are trying to make ends meet. Penalty rates make all the difference. I know this because my parents were migrants. They came to this country and they worked hard. These little things make a real difference to people's lives, just to get by. My parents worked in factories. These are things that matter to people. That's why we're here defending them. That's why we're here standing up for the people across Australia who rely so much on penalty rates just to make the day-to-day payments that they need to keep their families going.
But the government don't care. I was of half joking about a collective psychosis. I think either they're indifferent, which is even worse in some respects, or they really don't care or they really don't even see it. They just don't get it. When was the last time they had to work in a factory? When was the last time they had to make a choice between a power bill or a food bill? When was the last time they had to make a choice about their kids' clothing or putting food on the table or getting a good breakfast for their kids? When was the last time any member on that side even had to think about that? I don't think any of you have. When you have experience in life, when you've gone through the tough times, you know how important these things are to people; you know how important it is for these people to make their day go by and get on with it. It's not like they're asking for a handout. These people are working. These penalty rates make a difference to their lives. They're working for it. They're working on weekends. They're not asking for a handout. They just want the fairness of getting paid for the work that they're doing on weekends when they can get the penalty rates. It makes all the difference to those people.
I'm saddened by the government. As I said, either they've got some sort of psychosis in the way that they are targeting the most vulnerable or they are incompetent or indifferent—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Petrie on a point of order?
Mr Howarth: For reflecting on members again—'psychosis' of the government.
An opposition member: Get a skin!
Mr Howarth: Standing orders say you can't reflect on members. That's what you're doing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wills will withdraw and use his last 30 seconds.
Mr KHALIL: If the member for Petrie is so upset about that—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just withdraw.
Mr KHALIL: Let me withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. There's no psychosis. It's actually worse than that: they're indifferent; they really don't care; they don't get it. It's actually worse. Something like psychosis, as some sort of mental condition, gives you a bit of excuse. You don't have an excuse. You don't have an excuse for going after the worst-affected people who rely on penalty rates. You don't have an excuse going after single mums and working women. You don't have an excuse going after Australians who rely on this to get by.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (19:28): It's really good to be able to come in here on duty and talk on this motion on penalty rates for the second time. I spoke on it originally when the member for Longman raised the issue. One of the issues that I raised back then I will come to in a moment. As someone who's always worked in the private sector and didn't have a job in government or in Brisbane City Council, or as a career politician or in the union, I have a little bit of understanding of what it's like. I've crawled on my guts under houses; I've crawled through roofs in 35-degree heat.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The members on my left have all had a fair go.
Mr HOWARTH: I've done a lot of the things that the member opposite said that we on this side of the House have no idea about it. One of the greatest things that I've been able to see as the member for Petrie since being elected in 2013 is a seven per cent reduction in youth unemployment in my electorate. I put that down to a number of things. I have to laugh when the opposition come in here and talk about penalty rates, given that the member for Longman in March last year, at Easter time, stood in front of Coles and said, 'Thank you for working. Thank you for working at Easter. We really appreciate it,' but at the same time her union had negotiated away the penalty rates of those workers on Sundays. Her union had negotiated the rate from double time to time and a half. There was a 25 per cent reduction in the award rate, thanks to the member opposite and their union's EBA. I really don't call that looking after workers.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Legal Services: Funding
(Question No. 727)
Mrs Elliot asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 22 May 2017
In respect of the Attorney-General's announcement on 24 April 2017 that the Government would reverse its funding cuts to the community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, (a) will the Northern Rivers Community Legal Centre funding be completely restored; if so, will this funding allow for annual increases to maintain current service levels; and (b) will there be an ongoing commitment to the outreach services in Tweed Heads, Murwillumbah and Pottsville.
Mr Keenan: The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
On 28 June 2017 a variation to the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services 2015‑20 (the Agreement) came into effect, following agreement by all state and territory first ministers. Under the Agreement, the additional funding announced on 24 April 2017 will be provided to states and territories to allocate to individual community legal centres for family law and family violence related services, informed by existing, evidence‑based collaborative service planning processes already in place under the Agreement.
The states and territories will report to the Commonwealth on the allocation of the funding by 30 September 2017. The additional funding includes indexation on an annual basis.